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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2632 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the 

flag of the United States on National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, 

Mr. CONYERS, Ms. WATSON, and Mr. KING of New York) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the 

display of the flag of the United States on National 

Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. 

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 ‘‘Korean War Veterans 

5 Recognition Act’’. 

mstockstill@gpo.gov on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2632 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAG ON NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VET2 ERANS ARMISTICE DAY. 

3 Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amend4 ed by inserting ‘‘National Korean War Veterans Armistice 

5 Day, July 27;’’ after ‘‘July 4;’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill@gpo.gov on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 302 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 302

  To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to reinstate the 
               uptick rule on short sales of securities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

Mr. Ackerman (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. 
 McCarthy of New York, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Perlmutter) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to reinstate the 
               uptick rule on short sales of securities.

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

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT REQUIRED.

    Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission shall--
            (1) reinstate rule 10a-1 of the Commission's rules (17 CFR 
        240.10a-1);
            (2) rescind rule 201 of regulation SHO (17 CFR 242.201); 
        and
            (3) take such other actions as may be necessary to 
        reinstate the price test restrictions that applied to short 
        sales of securities prior to the Commission's action in the 
        proceeding entitled ``Regulation SHO and Rule 10a-1'', adopted 
        June 28, 2007 (Release No. 34-55970; File No. S7-21-06).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000927388
<NAME> BROOKE GROUP, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,985
<PP&E>                                          45,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,704
<BONDS>                                        400,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (490,247)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,460
<SALES>                                        389,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,615
<CGS>                                          202,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (50,298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (51,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,536
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49,885)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.74)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                              L Q CORPORATION, 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 Quarterly Report of L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sebastian
Cassetta, Chief Executive 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:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated: May 19, 2006


                                                     /s/ Sebastian Cassetta
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Sebastian Cassetta
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1730
PETER C. PIRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, McLean, VA; LEE S. STRICKLAND, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-321-3) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter C. Piron, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Peter C. Piron appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his action against the Central Intelligence Agency. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Piron v. Central Intelligence Agency , No. CA-01-321-3 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2001). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Thomas C.K. Yuen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 6, 2007 |                     |                  |
|----------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
|                 | By:                      | /s/  Thomas C.K. Yuen |
|                 | Thomas  C.K. Yuen        |
|                 | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2  Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Building Materials Corporation of
America (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
John F. Rebele, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and
belief:  (1)The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ John F.
  RebeleName:
  John F.
  RebeleTitle:
  Senior Vice
  President and
  Chief Financial OfficerDate:
  March 26,
  2003  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Building
Materials Corporation of America and will be retained by Building Materials
Corporation of America and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.  This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
#### Gay Eugene BLANKENSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-7214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Gay Eugene Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gay Eugene Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to strike Defendant’s answer and denying his request for a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Blankenship seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I,
Gary Herman, certify that:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending September
30, 2012 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | December 17, 2012             
|----- | ------------------------------
|By:   | /s/
    Gary Herman           
|      | Name: Gary Herman             
|      | Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Joel Owusu, Respondent, v Hearst Communications, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[860 NYS2d 38]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about December 26, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability *286under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the cross motion of defendants Hearst Communications, Inc., Turner Construction Co., sued herein as Turner Construction Corp., and Fresh Meadow Mechanical Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims and the common-law negligence claim as against all of them and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as against Fresh Meadow, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff’s motion and to grant defendants’ cross motion to the extent of dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Hearst and all claims as against Fresh Meadow, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been denied, because there is a triable issue of fact whether the “ship ladder” from which plaintiff fell was a device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) or “a permanent staircase not designed as a safety device to afford protection from an elevation-related risk and therefore outside the coverage of the statute” *(Griffin v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 202, 203 [2005]).

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should have been dismissed as against Hearst, because there was no evidence that it had actual knowledge that a tread was missing from the ship ladder and no evidence of the length of time the tread was missing, as is required for a finding of constructive notice *(see Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y.,*17 AD3d 252, 255 [2005]). However, plaintiffs deposition testimony about a radio transmission that he overheard shows that Turner had actual knowledge of the missing step.

All plaintiffs claims should have been dismissed as against Fresh Meadow, because it neither controlled nor supervised plaintiff, who worked for a different subcontractor *(see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son,*54 NY2d 311 [1981]). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should also have been dismissed as against Fresh Meadow because plaintiff submitted only hearsay and surmise in support of his contention that Fresh Meadow removed the tread from the ladder, and did not “demonstrate acceptable excuse” for his failure to tender evidence in admissible form *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit





                             
                           


EXHIBIT 10.1





February 15, 2018
delivered by email 


J. Bruce Robinson




Dear Bruce:


We have received your letter of resignation from our Board of Directors dated February 15, 2018.  On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank you for your past service to our company.


This letter is to confirm that, as a result of your agreement to provide consulting services as an Assistant Secretary of Cognex through the close of business on March 23, 2019, your unvested options to acquire shares of Cognex common stock (option nos. AR010322, AR010702 and AR011169) granted to you under Cognex’s Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) will continue to vest in the amounts and at the times set forth in the applicable award agreements.  After March 23, 2019, there will be no further vesting of your Cognex stock options, and the remaining unvested stock options will automatically terminate.  Your rights with respect to your Cognex stock options will continue to be governed in all respects by the terms of the Plan and the applicable award agreements. 


Please sign in the space indicated below and return this letter to me. 




Sincerely yours,




Robert J. Shillman
Chairman of the Board of Directors 




Acknowledged and Agreed:


/s/ J. Bruce Robinson
J. Bruce Robinson


Date: February 15, 2018




Cognex Corporation         One Vision Drive         Natick, MA 01760-2059         (508) 650-3000          fax (508) 650-3333          www.cognex.com
#### IBM Credit Financing Corporation, Appellant, v Mazda Motor Manufacturing (USA) Corporation, Now Known as Autoalliance International, Inc., Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 645]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered June 3, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint and awarded defendant the principal sum of $5,450,000 on its counterclaim for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that plaintiff had clearly repudiated the parties’ sale and lease-back agreement by advancing an untenable interpretation based upon a foreseeable tax factor that had been consistently absent from the pre-contractual negotiations and the governing documents while other tax assumptions were an express part of the understanding of the parties. Plaintiff’s proffered view of the transaction would have made no economic sense for defendant and would have frustrated defendant’s explicit central purpose in entering into the transaction *(see, Westbury Post Ave. Assocs. v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*46 AD2d 860, *affd*38 NY2d 890; *Ronnen v Ajax Elec. Motor Corp.,*88 NY2d 582, 589). Moreover, basing defendant’s rental adjustments for the long-term lease on plaintiff’s end of year income would have rendered meaningless the contractual provision for notifying defendant of changes in tax law that would affect its rental adjustments, such that that construction should be avoided *(supra).*

*79We have considered plaintiff’s contentions regarding the award of damages on defendant’s counterclaim and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ. [See, 170 Misc 2d 15.]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3989

___________ Frank R. Owens, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Verlyn Isaac; Jean Evan; C/O Phillip; * Mike Bickford; William Soupene; * [UNPUBLISHED] Kevin Hagemann; Marilee S. * Giegerich; K. Clark; Stephen Salviati; * Tyrone Bontrager; Raymond Turano; * Samuel Fierro; Larry J. Theilen; Lt. * Pasker; Randy Oldenburger; Tom * Luensman; Dan Dietiker; Steve Lynch; * William Rindy; C/O Baker; Kathy * Condon; Jerry Burt; Steven Wendl; * Jake Noonan, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2009 Filed: May 12, 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2- Iowa inmate Frank R. Owens appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, seePopoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs. , 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review), we find no basis for overturning the district court’s determination that Owens had not administratively e xhausted his conditions-of-confinement claims, and we conclude summary judgment was proper on hi s claims arising from prison disciplinary matters and from his December 2006 transfer to the Iowa State Prison. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive 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:



|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By:
    
    /s/ Jack B. BinionJack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer
November 10, 2003