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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 264 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 264

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of Mendocino, 
 Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties in the State of California, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2011

  Mr. Thompson of California introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of Mendocino, 
 Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties in the State of California, 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 ``Northern California Ocean and 
Coastal Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act or any other law and except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
        conduct of oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
        activities is prohibited in areas of the outer Continental 
        Shelf located off the coast of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del 
        Norte Counties in the State of California.
            ``(2) Effect.--Nothing in this subsection affects any 
        rights under leases issued under this Act before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection.''.

SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND 
              NATURAL GAS RESOURCES.

    Section 357(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
15912(a)) is amended by inserting after ``Continental Shelf'' the 
following: ``(other than the areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off 
the coast of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties in the State of 
California)''.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ALBERT BRONT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2012-3121 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. SF0752110583-I-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Albert Bront moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

The court notes that this petition was dismissed on 

September 27, 2012 for failure to pay the fee. We treat Mr. 

Bront’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as a 

motion to reinstate the petition. 

 Upon consideration thereof, 

Case: 12-3121 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2013
ALBERT BRONT v. TREASURY 2

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

is granted. 

(2) The mandate is recalled, the court’s dismissal order is vacated, and the petition is reinstated. This case 

will be placed on the next available calendar. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 12-3121 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2013
**Exhibit 12.1**
**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                   **Three Months Ended** **Nine Months Ended**  **September 30,** **September 30,**  **2004** **2003** **2004** **2003**  **(in thousands)****Fixed Charges:**                Gross interest expense $4,162  $3,868  $12,771  $11,486 Interest portion of rent expense  39   32   119   96                     4,201   3,900   12,890   11,582 **Earnings:**                Income before taxes  67,982   53,427   203,774   166,450 Plus: fixed charges  4,201   3,900   12,890   11,582 Less: capitalized interest  2,162   2,026   6,178   5,218                    $70,021  $55,301  $210,486  $172,814 **Ratio of Earnings to FixedCharges**  16.7x   14.2x   16.3x   14.9x                        **For the Years Ended December 31,**  **2003** **2002** **2001** **2000** **1999**  **(in thousands)****Fixed Charges:**                    Gross interest expense $15,642  $15,373  $15,034  $25,100  $25,167 Interest portion of rent expense  129   122   46   40   28                         15,771   15,495   15,080   25,140   25,195 **Earnings:**                    Income before taxes  205,999   109,586   189,404   127,743   36,369 Plus: fixed charges  15,771   15,495   15,080   25,140   25,195 Less: capitalized interest  (7,300)  (7,975)  (12,042)  (13,739)  (11,860)                       $214,470  $117,106  $192,442  $139,144  $49,704 **Ratio of Earnings to FixedCharges**  13.6x   7.6x   12.8x   5.5x   2.0x 
32
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.
33-96848, 333-104640, 333-110258, 333-111993, 333-112639, 333-122645,
333-131354) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-33902, 333-33904, 333-111994, 333-112059,
333-112060, 333-118189) on Form S-8 of JMAR Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated April 1, 2008 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial
statements and the financial statement schedule, which appears on Form 10-K of
JMAR Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.








/s/
SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP


Santa
Ana, California


April 4,
2008
Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

              Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                                December 31, 2003


The  undersigned  directors of the following  companies (each  respectively  the
"Company")

       Company                                        State of Incorporation

  AEP Generating Company                                      Ohio
  Appalachian Power Company                                 Virginia
  AEP Texas Central Company                                  Texas
  AEP Texas North Company                                    Texas
  Columbus Southern Power Company                             Ohio
  Kentucky Power Company                                    Kentucky
  Ohio Power Company                                          Ohio
  Public Service Company of Oklahoma                        Oklahoma
  Southwestern Electric Power Company                       Delaware

do hereby constitute and appoint MICHAEL G. MORRIS, STEPHEN P. SMITH and SUSAN
TOMASKY, and each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for
them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities, the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K, pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and any and
all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing required or
necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents this
28th day of January, 2004.



   /s/ Jeffrey D. Cross                         /s/ Armando A. Pena
-----------------------------------         ----------------------
Jeffrey D. Cross                            Armando A. Pena


   /s/ Henry W. Fayne                          /s/ Robert P. Powers
-----------------------------------         -----------------------
Henry W. Fayne                              Robert P. Powers


   /s/ Thomas M. Hagan                         /s/ Thomas V. Shockley, III
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------
Thomas M. Hagan                             Thomas V. Shockley, III


   /s/ Michael G. Morris                       /s/ Susan Tomasky
-----------------------------------         --------------------
Michael G. Morris                           Susan Tomasky
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

               AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE SHARE AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to the MetLife, Inc. 2005 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan
(the "Plan"), MetLife, Inc. hereby amends your Management Performance Share
Agreement (the "Agreement") as of December 31, 2005, as follows (this
"Amendment"):

     1. Section 2(b) of the Agreement is restated in its entirety as follows:

               "(b) Death. In the event that your employment with the Company or
          an Affiliate terminates due to your death, your Performance Shares
          will be due and payable in Shares (or cash at a value equal to the
          Closing Price on the date of your death, if so determined by the
          Committee)."

     2. Any capitalized word used in this Amendment is defined in the Plan or
the Agreement. This Amendment will be construed in accordance with and governed
by the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless of the law that might be
applied under principles of conflict of laws. This Amendment, the Agreement
(including any Clarification), and the Plan represent the entire agreement
between you and the Company, and you and all Affiliates, regarding your
Performance Shares and no other promises, terms, or agreements of any kind
regarding your Performance Shares apply. In the event any provision of this
Amendment is held illegal or invalid, the rest of this Amendment will remain
enforceable.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to
execute this Amendment.

METLIFE, INC.

By:  Robert H. Benmosche
     ---------------------------------------
     Name

     Chairman of the Board and CEO
     ---------------------------------------
     Title


     /s/ Robert H. Benmosche
     ---------------------------------------
      Signature



       This document constitutes part of a prospectus covering securities
    that have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
EXHIBIT  10.41

     [DYNEX  CAPITAL,  INC.  LETTERHEAD]


October  20,  1998



Mr.  Adrian  Katz
Vice  Chairman  and  COO
AutoBond  Acceptance  Corporation
100  Congress  Avenue
Austin,  TX  78701

Dear  Adrian:

Pursuant  to  our  discussions outlined below are adjusted terms relating to the
warehouse  financing  agreements  between  AutoBond  Acceptance  Corporation
("AutoBond") and Dynex Capital, Inc. ("Dynex").  All existing agreements between
AutoBond  and  Dynex  remain in force with the exception of the modifications in
this  letter.

1.     The  advance  rate on all financed contracts will be lowered from 104% to
88%  of  the  principal  balance  of  all  contracts through a period ending the
earlier  of  the  settlement  date  of  a  securitization by Dynex of any of the
AutoBond  originated  finance  contracts  or  December  31,  1998  (the  "Period
Terminate  Date").  The  advance  rate  will retroactively revert to 104% at the
Period  Termination Date less any amounts that would otherwise have been paid as
principal  on  the  Funding  Notes  during  such  time  period.

2.     The  financing  costs  through  the Period Termination Date will be LIBOR
plus  150  basis  points  (1.5%),  consistent  with  the  Dynex/Daiwa Securities
financing  rate.  The  financing  costs will revert to the rates in the June 30,
1998  financing  modification  agreement  at  the  Period  Termination  Date.

3.     The  "Commitment  Termination Date" as defined and applicable in the June
9,  1998  Credit  Agreement shall be modified to mean (a) July 31, 1999, upon 90
days'  prior written notice from the Lender, or (b) if such notice is not given,
July  31,  2000,  Dynex management has also agreed to request the Dynex board of
directors  before  the end of October, 1998 to extend the Commitment Termination
Date  an  additional  four  months  to  November 30, 1999 and November 30, 2000.


Please  acknowledge  your  agreement  to  these modified terms by signing below.

Sincerely,



/s/  Lisa  R.  Cooke
--------------------
Lisa  R.  Cooke
Vice  President

AGREED  AND  ACKNOWLEDGED



/s/  Adrian  Katz
-----------------
Adrian  Katz

<PAGE>
1277

1 In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 

1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d. per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 

1983), there has been no judicial explication at all. 

QUARTERING SOLDIERS 

THIRD AMENDMENT 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any 

house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, 

but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

IN GENERAL 

There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee of the preference for the 

civilian over the military. 1
gZ,3S3-02_

TERRY LEE PIASECKI

TDCJ# 1717778

McCONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308

CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN/ TEXAS 78711

RE: TRIAL COURT NO- 11-03-02382-CR(1)

Dear Mr. Acosta:

I recently received a white card from your office stating that my applica

tion for writ of habeas corpus has been denied on the findings of the trial

court. I would like some clarification..).ion -this, issue. I filed several sup

plements with my 11.07 writ of habeas corpus, so I am wondering if the denial

is based on the supplements or on the writ itself.

Thank you,

p/g^ ~~£jB& (IzaGacA^-

UfFEB 21115

AtJ@fAeos!§,Cf©rk
OVIDIO FABRE,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0068

Opinion filed December 11, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Ovidio Fabre, pro se, Petitioner.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, and Mark J. Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.2


                                                                EXECUTION COPY


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                        TO
                  AMENDED AND RESTATED NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                               AND CONVERTIBLE NOTE

   This AMENDMENT No. 2 to that certain Convertible Note (the "Note") in the 
original principal amount of $5,000,000 dated October 31, 1996, issued by 
EarthLink Network, Inc. (the "Company"), to UUNET Technologies, Inc. 
("UUNET") and amended on January 1, 1997, is entered into this 27th day of 
October, 1997. This Amendment is hereby incorporated into and made a part of 
the Note.

   Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings 
given such terms in the Note and the Amended and Restated Note Purchase 
Agreement, dated as of October 31, 1996, between the Company and UUNET (the 
"Note Purchase Agreement").

   For value received, the parties to this Amendment hereby agree to the 
terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.

   1.  PAYMENT.  The Due Date set forth in the Note is hereby amended by 
extending such date from October 31, 1997 to October 31, 1998. However, in 
the event that the amount payable by the Company to UUNET under the Network 
Services Agreement dated May 31, 1996, as amended on October 31, 1996 (and as 
it may be amended from time to time), is less than $1.5 million per month 
during any consecutive three months, all amounts owing under the Note shall 
accelerate and become immediately due and payable.

   2.  RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION.  Except as specifically modified in 
this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Note shall remain 
in full force and effect without change, and the Note, as modified by this 
Amendment, and the Note Purchase Agreement are hereby ratified and affirmed 
by the parties.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be signed in 
their corporate names by their respective authorized officers.

UUNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.               EARTHLINK NETWORK, INC.


By: /s/ JOHN W. SIDGMORE               By: /s/ CHARLES G. BETTY
    --------------------------             --------------------------
    John W. Sidgmore                       Charles G. Betty
    Chief Executive Officer                President
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Collins v. Collins

August 16, 1984

Case No. (Chancery) 33374

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

For decision are Exceptions to the Report of the Commissioner in Chancery filed by the Complainant. Argument has been presented and the record carefully reviewed and I hasten to advise you of my opinion.

A Commissioner in Chancery is appointed for the purpose of assisting the Court, not to replace the Court. The Chancellor does not delegate his judicial function and it is his duty to weigh the evidence according to correct principles of law and to arrive at his own conclusions. *Hoffecker*v. *Hoffecker,*200 Va. 119; *Higgins*v. *Higgins, 205*Va. 324. A Commissioner’s Report is not entitled to the weight given to a jury verdict; however it is entitled to great weight when the testimony has been taken in the Commissioner’s presence and the Report should not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions are clearly erroneous. *Parksley National Bank*v. *Parks,*172 Va. 169; *Newton*v. *Newton,*202 Va. 96; *Thrasher*v. *Thrasher,*202 Va. 594.

When viewed in the light of these familiar principles I am of the opinion that the Report in this instance must be affirmed. In many respects the factual evidence is in hopeless conflict. Likewise, the requirement of corroboration of various of the essential elements of the Complainant’s charge of cruelty *225has not been met. Different minds, all reasonable, might well come to differing conclusions on the evidence presented. On balance I cannot say that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, the Exceptions must be denied and the Report will be approved.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY SET FORTH IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,058
<PP&E>                                         846,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                 295,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 580,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,325
<BONDS>                                        191,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           239
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   580,511
<SALES>                                         98,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,448
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,274
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,032
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3574

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cassandra Lynn Dismang

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: May 1, 2014

Filed: May 6, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cassandra Lynn Dismang directly appeals the district court’s1

 judgment

revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to 15 months in prison. After

1

The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in finding

that Dismang had violated the conditions of her supervised release, and did not abuse

its discretion by revoking her supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557

F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). This court also concludes that the

district court committed no procedural sentencing error, and the 15-month sentence,

which was below the Guidelines range and was the sentence Dismang requested, was

not substantively unreasonable. See id. at 915-17 (discussing procedural-error and

substantive-reasonableness tests); see also United States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931,

934 (8th Cir. 2005) (where defendant received sentence at bottom of Guidelines range

as requested, she cannot challenge reasonableness of sentence on appeal).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-