alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 295 

AN ACT 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 

1998 to authorize funds to acquire hydrographic data 

and provide hydrographic services specific to the Arctic 

for safe navigation, delineating the United States extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description of coastal changes. 
2 

•HR 295 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Section 306 of the Hydrographic Services Improve5 ment Act of 1998 (33 U.S.C. 892d) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting before the text the following: 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(b) ARCTIC PROGRAMS.—Of the amount authorized 

11 by this section for fiscal year 2012— 

12 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000 is authorized for use to ac13 quire hydrographic data, provide hydrographic serv14 ices, conduct coastal change analyses necessary to 

15 ensure safe navigation, and improve the manage16 ment of coastal change in the Arctic; and 

17 ‘‘(2) $2,000,000 is authorized for use to ac18 quire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic 

19 services in the Arctic necessary to delineate the 

20 United States extended Continental Shelf.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 

2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 295 

AN ACT 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement 

coastal changes. shelf, and the monitoring and description of eating the United States extended continental specific to the Arctic for safe navigation, delingraphic data and provide hydrographic services Act of 1998 to authorize funds to acquire hydro-
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Edward Lee Johnson

October 30, 1985

Case No. 11,402

By JUDGE AUSTIN E. OWEN

When the subject criminal action came on for trial on October 17, 1985, the defendant, by counsel, orally moved the Court to quash the indictment on the ground that the defendant had been arrested for the same offense on February 11, 1985; that on the date scheduled for preliminary hearing, April 18, 1985, the Attorney for the Commonwealth moved to nolle prosequi the charge and the motion was granted; that the defendant was thereafter indicted on May 6, 1985, and has never been afforded a preliminary hearing which he now demands.

The Court finds it unnecessary to rule upon the question as to whether the motion should be denied as not timely made, because the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied on its merits.

It should first be noted that the requirement for a preliminary hearing under Code Section 19.2-218 is not jurisdictional and constitutionally imposed, but is only statutory and procedural. *Webb*v. *Commonwealth,*204 Va. 24 (1963); *Triplett*v. *Commonwealth,*212 Va. 649 (1972).

The failure of a Court to provide a preliminary hearing where the defendant is entitled thereto by statute would be reversible error. *Triplett, supra.*

*A*person arrested on a felony charge as to which he is entitled to a preliminary hearing by statute, is *249no longer entitled to such a hearing when he is no longer detained or under any other form of legal restraint. As expressed in *Moore*v. *Commonwealth,*218 Va. 388, 394 (1977):

> [Section 19.1-163.1] deals by its very language only with a person who is "arrested," meaning, within this context, a person who is detained in custody by authority of law or one who is under a legal restraint.

At the time of his indictment, the defendant in this action was not detained nor under any legal restraint and did not then have and does not presently have any statutory right to a preliminary hearing.

While the defendant has not suggested that the Commonwealth has employed some manipulative procedure designed to prevent a formerly existing right to a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth did not wish to leave such a possible inference unanswered. In her memorandum, Mrs. Pritchard has explained the basis of the Motion to Nolle Prosequi the warrant originally obtained, and there has been no suggestion of any other basis.

For the reason above indicated, the Motion to Quash the Indictment is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Executive
Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Larry G. Gerdes    
|Larry G. Gerdes        
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 1, 2006
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2884 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the deadline for the payment 

to be made by the United States Postal Service in 2011 in connection 

with the financing of future health benefits for retirees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 

Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the deadline 

for the payment to be made by the United States Postal 

Service in 2011 in connection with the financing of future health benefits for retirees. 

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 ‘‘USPS Retiree Health 

5 Benefits Prepayment Extension Act of 2011’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2884 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8909a(d)(3)(A)(v) of title 

3 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘September 

4 30, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact7 ment of section 803(a)(1)(B) of the Postal Accountability 

8 and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109–435; 120 Stat. 

9 3251). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2725 

To amend the Budget Control Act of 2011 to protect the Medicare program 

from budget cuts under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Ms. WILSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Budget Control Act of 2011 to protect the 

Medicare program from budget cuts under such Act. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Protection 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO MEDICARE CUTS. 

7 (a) NO CUTS THROUGH LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE OF

8 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2725 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Title IV of the Budget Con2 trol Act of 2011 is amended by adding at the end 

3 the following new section: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 405. NO MEDICARE CUTS. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The joint committee shall not in6 clude in its proposed legislative language submitted pursu7 ant to section 401(b)(3)(B)(iv) any provision that reduces 

8 eligibility, payments, or benefits, increases premiums or 

9 other cost-sharing, or otherwise reduces outlays under the 

10 Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 

11 Act. 

12 ‘‘(b) NO APPLICATION OF EXPEDITED PROCE13 DURES.—If the joint committee bill includes a provision 

14 that violates subsection (a), the expedited procedures in 

15 section 402 shall not apply to such bill.’’. 

16 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of con17 tents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by in18 serting after the item relating to section 404 the fol19 lowing new item: 

‘‘Sec. 405. No Medicare cuts.’’. 

20 (b) NO CUTS THROUGH FALLBACK SEQUESTRATION

21 PROCESS.—Section 251A(8) of the Balanced Budget and 

22 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as inserted by 

23 section 302(a) of the Budget Control Act of 2011, is 

24 amended by striking ‘‘except that the percentage reduction 

25 for the Medicare programs specified in section 256(d) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2725 IH

1 shall not be more than 2 percent for a fiscal year’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘except that there shall be no percentage reduc3 tion for the Medicare programs specified in section 256(d) 

4 for any fiscal year and in no case shall there be a reduction 

5 under such programs pursuant to a sequestration under 

6 section 3101A(f)(6) of title 31, United States Code’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[947 NYS2d 754]

#### C.H.T. Place, LLC, Respondent, v Anibal Rios et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts,

April 4, 2012

*2APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Ann C. Northern,*Brooklyn, for appellants. *Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C.,*New Hyde Park *(Daniel Saketkhou*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered June 25, 2010 is dismissed; and it is further, ordered that the order entered July 8, 2010, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding based on chronic late payment of rent and breach of a substantial obligation of the lease to pay submetered electricity charges, tenants, after defaulting under the terms of a probationary stipulation, moved, by way of cross *3motion, to vacate the stipulation and dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to stay the proceeding pending a determination by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) of their complaint regarding an alleged submetering overcharge. The Civil Court, by order entered June 25, 2010, denied tenants’ cross motion. By order dated July 8, 2010, the court denied the branch of tenants’ subsequent motion seeking leave to renew their cross motion and, upon, in effect, granting leave to reargue the cross motion, adhered to the prior determination.

Tenants’ appeal from the order entered June 25, 2010 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered July 8, 2010 which, in effect, granted tenants leave to reargue their prior cross motion.

The order dated July 8, 2010, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed. Tenants’ claim that the probationary stipulation should have been vacated because it improperly required them to pay electricity charges is without merit. While electricity charges may not be deemed additional rent where a tenancy is rent stabilized *(Related Tiffany v Faust,*191 Misc 2d 528 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]), the stipulation in this holdover proceeding did not provide that landlord would have judgment for those charges, merely that tenants would cure their breach of a substantial obligation of the lease by paying the charges in installments. Moreover, landlord’s inclusion in the petition of a demand for arrears which included the electricity charges did not render the petition jurisdictionally defective *(see Birchwood Towers #2*Assoc. *v Schwartz,*98 AD2d 699 [1983]; *17th Holding v Rivera,*195 Misc 2d 531 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]) and did not provide a basis for vacating the stipulation. Furthermore, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to stay this proceeding pending the PSC determination, as tenants did not show that their overcharge complaint had merit and as they were not in substantial compliance with the stipulation. We note, too, that tenants’ course of conduct in failing to timely pay rent and/or use and occupancy has continued during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the order entered July 8, 2010, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
a10-11.htm


Exhibit 10.11







FIRST AMENDMENT


 TO


 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







     The Employment Agreement made as of the 1st day of July, 2003 by and between AvalonBay Communities,


 Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas J. Sargeant (“Executive”) is hereby amended as follows:







Section 7(c)(iii)(B) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said subsection in its entirety and substituting thereof the following:







“(B) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive; and”







Section 7(c)(iv)(E) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said subsection in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:







“(E) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive.”







Section 7(c)(v) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting subsection (B) thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:







“(B) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive; and”







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







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is entered into this 31st day of March, 2005.


 



	  	
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.  

	  
	 	 	 
	  	
By:  

	
/s/ Charlene Rothkopf  

	  
	  	  	
Charlene Rothkopf, EVP – Human Resources 

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	
/s/ Edward M. Schulman  

	  
	  	  	
Edward M. Schulman, 

	  
	  	  	
SVP, General Counsel & Secretary 

	  
	  
	  	
Thomas J. Sargeant

	  
	  	
Executive
#### LPP MORTGAGE, LTD., petitioner, v. Stuart C. BRINLEY, et al.

No. 04-1729.

Jan. 23, 2006.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 10.87**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER ACKNOWELDGEMENT**

**RELATING TO RECOUPMENT POLICY**

The undersigned officer of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. hereby acknowledges receipt of the Iconix Brand Group, Inc. Recoupment Policy andagrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of such policy. The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that the Recoupment Policy applies to all outstanding awards as of the date of this acknowledgement, as well as any future awards. With respect toclawback or recoupment provisions contained in any outstanding award agreement, the terms of this Recoupment Policy supersede those of such award agreement. The undersigned acknowledges that the restatement of any SEC Report that was filed prior tothe adoption of the Recoupment Policy shall be analyzed under Section 2 of the Recoupment Policy and may require certain incentive compensation to be recouped by the Company in accordance with the terms of the Recoupment Policy.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2545 

To clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service 

to convene a regulatory review panel for certain rules, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2011 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself and Ms. FOXX) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 

Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service to convene a regulatory review 

panel for certain rules, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘IRS Rulemaking Fair5 ness Act of 2011’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2545 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF G TO INTER2 NAL REVENUE SERVICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 603(a) of title 5, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting after ‘‘to the extent that such 

6 interpretative rules’’ the following: ‘‘, or the statutes 

7 under which such rules are made,’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘or recordkeeping requirement’’. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 601 of title 5, United 

11 States Code, is amended— 

12 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

13 end; and 

14 (2) in paragraphs (7) and (8) to read as fol15 lows: 

16 ‘‘(7) the term ‘collection of information’ has the 

17 meaning given such term in section 3502(3) of title 

18 44, United States Code; and 

19 ‘‘(8) the term ‘recordkeeping requirement’ has 

20 the meaning given such term in section 3502(13) of 

21 title 44, United States Code.’’. 

22 SEC. 3. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REQUIRED TO CON23 VENE REGULATORY REVIEW PANEL. 

24 Section 609(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 

25 amended— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2545 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

4 the end; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) the Internal Revenue Service.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of Oral Agreement for Payment of Services
 between Adolor Corporation and its Board of Directors

 

(effective as of May 17, 2011)

 

Adolor Corporation (the “Company”) compensates its non-employee directors through a mix of base cash compensation, deferred stock and stock option grants.  The elements of the non-employee directors’ compensation are as follows:

 

	
Annual Retainers/Meeting Fees:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·   Board Service Annual   Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
25,000
    	
 
    
	
·   In-person or   Telephonic Board Meeting Fees
    	
 
    	
$
    	
2,000/mtg.
    	
 
    
	
·   Committee   Chair Service Fees
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·   Audit   Committee Chair Annual Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
11,000
    	
 
    
	
·   Compensation   Committee Chair Annual Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
·   Governance & Nominating Committee Chair Annual Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
5,000
    	
 
    
	
·   Committee Member Service Fees (Non-Chair)
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·   Audit Committee Member
    	
 
    	
$
    	
7,500
    	
 
    
	
·   Compensation Committee Member
    	
 
    	
$
    	
6,500
    	
 
    
	
·   Governance & Nominating Committee Member
    	
 
    	
$
    	
2,500
    	
 
    
	
·   Chairman of the Board Annual Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
23,500
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stock Option Compensation:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·   Initial Grant   (upon first election or appointment to Board)
    	
 
    	
45,000 shares
    	
 
    
	
·   Annual Grant (upon the date of the Annual Meeting)
    	
 
    	
30,000 shares
    	
 
    


 

Under the Company’s Amended and Restated 2003 Stock-Based Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), the initial grant of 45,000 stock options to a non-employee director is made at the time of the earlier to occur of such director’s appointment as a director by the Board or first election to the Board by stockholders.  This initial award vests over a three-year period, with 33.3% becoming exercisable on each anniversary of the grant date.

 

At the Annual Meeting, each individual who will continue to serve as a non-employee director will receive an annual grant of 30,000 stock options that vest in full on the first anniversary of the date of grant.  Stock options granted to non-employee directors have a ten-year term and are granted with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our Common Stock on the date of grant.

 

The Board of Directors also may grant options under the Plan to non-employee directors in addition to the automatic grants described above.
`[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Appendices]
[5. Conversions]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 Edition
      
        APPENDIX 5 -- CONVERSIONS
         Political Appointee Movement to
          Competitive Service/Career SES
          With No Break In Service
          or Intervening Appointment
January 20, 1993 - June 30, 1996 
         Notes 
      
      1. Coverage of this report is limited to employees who served under 
        a Schedule C appointment, Presidential appointment, Noncareer Executive 
        Assignment, Noncareer Senior Executive Service (SES) appointment or other 
        Excepted Service Executive Level position in agencies covered by the Central 
        Personnel Data File (CPDF) between January 20, 1993 and June 30, 1996, 
        and subsequently received, with no break in Federal civilian service or 
        intervening appointment, a career or career-conditional Competitive Service 
        appointment or Career Senior Executive Service appointment in those agencies 
        between January 20, 1993 and June 30, 1996. Employees of the Executive 
        Residence with Presidential appointments under Schedule A and ambassadors 
        not coded with the presidential appointment authority code are excluded. 
      2. The data displayed in the columns labeled Latest' reflect the 
        Competitive Service or Career SES appointment action. Except for the column 
        labeled Date of Appt', the data in the columns labeled Prior' reflect 
        data from the last action on which the employee was identified as a political 
        appointee. The Date of Appt' column displays the date of the political 
        appointment. 
      3.  Employees who were reinstated to career/career-conditional Competitive 
        Service or Career SES positions after service as a political appointee 
        are not included in these reports.`