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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 273 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the treatment 

of qualified restaurant property as 15-year property for purposes of 

the depreciation deduction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. 

HERGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the treatment of qualified restaurant property as 15- 

year property for purposes of the depreciation deduction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED 

4 RESTAURANT PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR PROP5 ERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRECIATION DE6 DUCTION. 

7 (a) TREATMENT MADE PERMANENT.—Clause (v) of 

8 section 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 273 IH

1 1986 (defining 15-year property) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘placed in service before January 1, 2010’’. 

3 (b) TREATMENT TO INCLUDE NEW CONSTRUC4 TION.—Paragraph (7) of section 168(e) of such Code (re5 lating to classification of property) is amended to read as 

6 follows: 

7 ‘‘(7) QUALIFIED RESTAURANT PROPERTY.—The 

8 term ‘qualified restaurant property’ means any sec9 tion 1250 property which is a building or an im10 provement to a building if more than 50 percent of 

11 the building’s square footage is devoted to prepara12 tion of, and seating for on-premises consumption of, 

13 prepared meals.’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  JUNE 30,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001016082
<NAME>       Cyberexcellence, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        151
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              151
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         850
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      2,042
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,741)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  151
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,059)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,059)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2802 

To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial 

Foundation to establish a commemorative work in honor of former President John Adams and his legacy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Mr. DELAHUNT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of 

the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in honor of former President John 

Adams and his legacy, 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. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR 

4 MEMORIAL ESTABLISHMENT. 

5 (a) LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.—Section 1 of Public 

6 Law 107–62 is amended by adding after subsection (e) 

7 the following new subsection: 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2802 IH

1 ‘‘(f) EXPIRATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.— 

2 Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of title 40, United States 

3 Code, the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial 

4 Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Fed5 eral land in the District of Columbia and its environs in 

6 honor of former President John Adams and his family’s 

7 legacy shall expire on December 2, 2016.’’. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Public Law 107–62 

9 is amended— 

10 (1) in section 1(c), by striking ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 

11 1001, et seq.)’’ and inserting ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 8901, et 

12 seq.)’’; 

13 (2) in section 1(e), by striking ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 

14 1001, et seq.)’’ and inserting ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 8901, et 

15 seq.)’’; and 

16 (3) in section 2, by striking ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 1002)’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 8902(a))’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
Executive Order 13812

# Revocation of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management Forums

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**                    .                     *Policy*. The United States Government should spend tax dollars responsibly, efficiently, and in the public interest. The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (Council) and related agency-level labor-management forums have consumed considerable managerial time and taxpayer resources, but they have not fulfilled their goal of promoting collaboration in the Federal workforce. Public expenditures on the Council and related forums have produced few benefits to the public, and they should, therefore, be discontinued.                

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *Revocations.*                     (a) Executive Order 13522 of December 9, 2009 (Creating Labor-Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services), as extended by Executive Order 13708 of September 30, 2015 (Continuance or Reestablishment of Certain Federal Advisory Committees), which established the Council and implemented labor-management forums throughout the executive branch, is hereby revoked.                

(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and heads of executive departments and agencies shall, consistent with law, promptly move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, programs, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 13522.

**Sec. 3**                    .                     *General Provisions.*                     (a) Nothing in this order shall abrogate any collective bargaining agreements in effect on the date of this order.                

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

                    (c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.                          ( print page 46368)    

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2017-21559

Billing code 3295-F7-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 24, 2015

p1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2015

150297(47)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150297

COA: 315670

Van Buren CC: 1977

- 003053

- FC

LEO RAYMOND TERLISNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 3, 2015

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### Cherry Hill Market Corporation et al., Appellants, v Cozen O’Connor P.C. et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 146]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered April 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it dismissed the complaint without prejudice to plaintiffs re-serving a further complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the third cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The first two causes of action allege that defendants, as plaintiffs’ retained counsel in a zoning matter and an unrelated litigation, provided inadequate and ineffective representation because plaintiffs’ “objectives” in the zoning matter were not achieved, and because a summary-judgment motion was not filed by the court-imposed deadline in the unrelated litigation. The court properly treated the causes of action as sounding in legal malpractice, as opposed to causes of action founded upon common-law negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and properly dismissed them due to insufficient allegations as to proximate cause *(see generally Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,*56 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2008]; *Brooks v Lewin,*21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]). Indeed, plaintiffs did not plead facts to indicate that “but for” defendants’ alleged inadequate and ineffective representation of plaintiffs in the zoning and litigation matters, plaintiffs would have achieved the desired results sought *(Leder v Spiegel,*9 NY3d 836, 837 [2007], *cert denied*552 US 1257 [2008]; *Lieblich v Pruzan,*104 AD3d 462, 462-463 [1st Dept 2013]).

Flaintiffs’ third cause of action, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duty because they either collected and/or billed plaintiffs for excessive and/or unearned fees, should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the malpractice causes of action *(see Loria v Cerniglia,*69 AD3d 583, 583 [2d Dept 2010]). The third cause of action was not based upon the same facts underlying the malpractice claims *(cf. Cosmetics Plus Group, Ltd. v Traub,*105 AD3d 134, 143 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 855 [2013]). With respect to the instant *515complaint, a claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be premised on excessive legal fees charged by an attorney *(see Sobel v Ansanelli,*98 AD3d 1020, 1022 [2d Dept 2012]; *see also Nason v Fisher,*36 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2007]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action seeking declaratory relief regarding a dispute over legal fees, since an adequate remedy at law existed for the claim (namely, the third cause of action) *(see generally Apple Records v Capitol Records,*137 AD2d 50, 54 [1st Dept 1988]).

Concur — Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Feinman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc.

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Form S-8 (No.333-69175) of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. of our report
dated January 22, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements which
appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 23, 2004
Exhibit 31.1

﻿

CERTIFICATION

﻿

I, Valerie B. Palmieri, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 of Vermillion, Inc.; 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: April 30, 2018/s/ Valerie B. Palmieri______________

Valerie B. Palmieri

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

﻿

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,597-05

IN RE MICHAEL JEFFCOAT, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 13-0211-CC1 IN THE COUNT COURT AT LAW NO. 1 

FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. This matter arises from a misdemeanor conviction, which

Relator challenged by way of a post-conviction habeas application pursuant to Article 11.09 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. After the trial court denied relief, Relator appealed to the Third

Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. 

Relator alleged that he did not receive notice of the appellate decision until it was too late

to file a motion for rehearing. Relator ultimately filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the

trial court seeking an out-of-time motion for rehearing, pursuant to this Court’s holding in Ex parte

Valdez, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. Crim. App. May 4, 2016). The trial court granted relief, permitting
2

Relator to file his motion for rehearing on or before July 13, 2016. Relator filed his out-of-time 1

motion for rehearing on July 5, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the Clerk of the Third Court of Appeals

issued a letter advising Relator that because the appellate mandate had issued on October 23, 2014,

no action would be taken on the motion for rehearing. Relator now asks this Court to compel the

Third Court of Appeals to rule on the out-of-time motion for rehearing granted to him by the

Williamson County Court at Law No. 1.

Respondent, the Third District Court of Appeals, shall file a response with this Court by

stating whether Relator submitted a copy of an order of the Williamson County Court at Law No.

1, granting Relator an out-of-time motion for rehearing, and if so, whether the Third Court of

Appeals has ruled on Relator’s out-of-time motion for rehearing. Respondent’s answer shall be

submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted response.

Filed: August 24, 2016

Do not publish

Relator has not provided this Court with a copy of the trial court’s order granting relief,

1

or a citation to such order.
**EXHIBIT 31.02**I, Michael D. Matte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K for CyberGuard Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof the financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 1, 2005     /S/ Michael D. Matte         Michael D. Matte    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit



  Motorola Solutions, Inc.
2018-2020 Long Range Incentive Plan (LRIP) Terms
As Approved by the Compensation and Leadership Committee On February 15, 2018





 Exhibit 10.1
	
					
	Design Feature
	2018-2020 LRIP

	Performance Cycle
	Three years from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020

	Eligible Population
	Corporate Vice Presidents and above

	Performance Criteria
	

Relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR)
TSR Defined as:
Ending stock price
   (Daily average during the final three months of the Performance Cycle)
+   Value of reinvested dividends
=   Total ending value
–   Beginning stock price
   (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)
=   Total value created
÷   Beginning share price
   (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)
= Total shareholder return



	Negative TSR Component
	If the resulting TSR performance for Motorola Solutions is negative, the Committee will have negative discretion to reduce the final payout up to a 25% reduction of the calculated payout.

	Comparator Group
	S&P 500 defined as companies in the S&P 500 at the beginning of the performance period; must be publicly traded on or after July 1, 2019 to be included in the TSR percentile calculation at the end of the performance cycle.

	Payout Scale




	 

	 
	Relative TSR Payout Scale
	 

	MSI 3-Year TSR Percentile Rank
	Payout Factor

	90th - 100th Percentile
	250%

	80th - 89.99th Percentile
	200%

	70th - 79.99th Percentile
	175%

	60th - 69.99th Percentile
	150%

	55th - 59.99th Percentile
	110%

	50th - 54.99th Percentile
	90%

	45th - 49.99th Percentile
	80%

	35th - 44.99th Percentile
	50%

	30th - 34.99th Percentile
	30%

	< 30.00th Percentile
	0%
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00118-CR

RONNIE JAMES MONROE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1491623R)

September 13, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to reflect that the

jury found the repeat-offender notice to be not true. It is ordered that the judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier