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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 284 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study 

of the site of the Battle of Camden, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special 

resource study of the site of the Battle of Camden, 

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 title may be cited as the ‘‘Battle of Camden 

5 Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

8 complete a special resource study of the site of the Battle 

9 of Camden fought in South Carolina on August 16, 1780, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 284 IH

1 and the site of Historic Camden, which is currently a Na2 tional Park System Affiliated Area, to determine— 

3 (1) the suitability and feasibility of designating 

4 these sites as a unit or units of the National Park 

5 System; and 

6 (2) the methods and means for the protection 

7 and interpretation of these sites by the National 

8 Park Service, other Federal, State, or local govern9 ment entities or private or non-profit organizations. 

10 (b) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall 

11 conduct the study in accordance with section 8(c) of Pub12 lic Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5). 

13 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

14 on which funds are made available to carry out this title, 

15 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 

16 Resources of the House of Representatives and the Com17 mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 

18 a report containing— 

19 (1) the results of the study; and 

20 (2) any recommendations of the Secretary. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

/S/NICHOLAS J. BENSON

----
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth
No. 02

- 19

- 00405

- CV

K EITH H AMAKER , Appellant

V

.

T IERRAH N EWMAN , Appellee § § § § O n Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
of Denton County ( CV

- 2017

- 03255 ) March 10, 2022 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment

. H aving held that the breach

- of

cont ract damages award cons tituted a double recover y , we order the trial court ’ s ju d g m ent be modified to delet e that award. We affirm the remainder of the awarded damages conditioned on our suggestion of a remittitur of $4,903.37 on the amount
awarded f o r App ellant Keith Ha maker ’ s constructive eviction of Appellee Tierrah

Newman

. If N ewman timely files the suggested remittitur with this court within 15 days of the date of this ju dgment, then our subsequent judgment will reform the trialcourt ’ s judgment in ac cordance with th e remittitur and, as reformed, affirm that

judgment. If no such remittitur is timely file d, we must reverse the trial court ’ s judgment
and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on the issues of liability and damages.
We aff irm the rem ainder of the trial court ’ s judgment. It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal, for
which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker Justice Bria n Walker
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Bath Iron Works Corporation ) ASBCA No. 62771

)

Under Contract No. N00024-09-C-2302 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: David Robbins, Esq.

Won K. Lee, Esq.

 Jenner & Block, LLC

 Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Nicole R. Best, Esq.

David M. Marquez, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: January 25, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62771, Appeal of Bath Iron Works 

Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: January 27, 2022 

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7551
JEFFERY HANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJOHN JABE, Chief Warden; SHARON PALMER, Supervisor of Food Service, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-378-3) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jeffery Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hankins v. Jabe , No. CA-96-378-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 1996). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438
<INVENTORY>                                     39,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,875
<PP&E>                                          22,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,092
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,150
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,691)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,918
<SALES>                                        103,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,811
<CGS>                                           56,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,191
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 7, 2008 |                     |                    |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      | By:                      | /s/  Ulrich Gottschling |
|                      | Ulrich  Gottschling      |                    |
|                      | Chief  Financial Officer |                    |
|                           |                          |                         |  |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spanish Broadcasting
System, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Raul Alarcon, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors, President
and 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.

                                        /s/ RAUL ALARCON, JR.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Raul Alarcon, Jr.
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        March 15, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of
October 15, 1999, between bamboo.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly
known as Jutvision Corporation) (the "Company"), and Kevin B. McCurdy,
("Employee"), amends the Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1999,
between bamboo.com and Employee (the "Agreement").

     IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   Base Salary.  Effective October 1, 1999, the Base Salary set forth in
          -----------
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is increased to an annual rate of $240,000.

     2.   Miscellaneous.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement is,
          -------------
and shall remain, in full force and effect and each and every term and condition
thereof is hereby confirmed, continued and ratified. All terms defined in the
Agreement, except as otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meanings
where used herein. This Amendment may not be altered, amended or modified in any
way except by a writing signed by both parties. This Amendment may be executed
by exchange of signature pages by facsimile and/or in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original as against the party whose
signature appears thereon and all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.


BAMBOO.COM, INC.                        KEVIN B. MCCURDY

By: /s/ Leonard B. McCurdy              /s/ Kevin B. McCurdy
   -----------------------              --------------------
Name: Leonard B. McCurdy
     ---------------------
Title: Chairman & CEO
      --------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         321,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,882,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,642,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,900,229
<PP&E>                                       4,119,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                 835,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,216,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,276,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,439
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,621,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,216,382
<SALES>                                      3,651,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,651,886
<CGS>                                        1,046,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,046,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (21,320)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (717,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (213,124)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (504,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (504,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MENA SAMIR DOUS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 45 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3021 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3021

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2009

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that 
                                  Act.

    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 ``Citizens Protection Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS 
              TO THAT ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (q).
    (b) Related Amendments.--
            (1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking 
        paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), 
        (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), 
        respectively.
            (2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(k), or 
                (q)'' and inserting ``or (k)''; and
                    (B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating 
                paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through 
                (6), respectively.
            (3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 
        note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101-647; 104 Stat. 
        4844-4845) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. RICHMOND & D. R. CO. (DODGEN, Intervener).

(Circuit Court, N. D. Georgia.

May 30, 1895.)

No. 551.

Equity Practice—Reopening Cash kkfore Master.

After a master in chancery had prepared a draft of his report, and submitted it to the parties, to afford them an opportunity to except before *762. him prior to its filing, one of the parties petitioned the master to reopen the case, and give him an opportunity to put in certain material testimony which he had inadvertently omitted to offer, which petition was granted. *Held,*that the action of the master in reopening the case would not be disturbed by the court, it not appearing that he had abused his discretion.

J. T. Pendleton, for intervener.

Jackson & Leftwich, for defendant.

NEWMAN, District Judge.

The practice in this district, following' what is believed to be the correct chancery practice, is for the master in chancery to prepare a draft of his report, and notify counsel of the same, to which they must except before him, prior to the filing of the report regularly by the master in the clerk’s office, in order to have their exceptions considered by the court after the same has been filed. On the filing of a draft of the special master’s report in this case, counsel for the intervener called the attention of the special master to the fact that by inadvertence they had failed to put in certain testimony which was material to their case. The special master, after hearing the matter, determined to reopen the case, and hear- the evidence. The question submitted here is whether the court will overrule the master’s action in reopening the case for the admission of additional testimony. At that stage of the case the question of reopening it for hearing further evidence was a matter for the special master, and the court ought not to interfere with his discretion, unless it has been abused. The petition to the special master to reopen this case was sworn to by the two counsel for the intervener, and in the petition they state that the omission of the testimony which they now desire to introduce was inadvertent, caused by the long duration of the case and the manner in which it was tried, in connection with several other cases, and this, they claim, confused them as to what testimony was really in. I am unable to see that the discretion which the special master certainly ought to have in such matters has been abused. He still had the case within his control. He had prepared a draft of this report, and given counsel notice of the same, but it had not been regularly filed in the court, so as to take it out of his power to act in the matter. He believed that under the facts it was his duty to reopen the case, and the court will not interfere with him in so doing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 14, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21167 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JAVIER GONZALEZ GARCIA, also known as La Muerta Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-572-9

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Javier Gonzalez Garcia (Garcia) appeal the 168-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money derived from drug trafficking. Garcia contends that the district court should have reduced his offense level by three levels under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 because he did not substantially complete the offense underlying the conspiracy charge before being arrested. We review this claimNo. 03-21167 -2- for plain error because Garcia did not raise it in the district
court. See United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 415 (5th Cir. 1994). The record shows that Garcia substantially completed the underlying offense as set forth in the indictment; his argument about his geographical distance from Mexico at the time of his arrest is irrelevant. The district court committed no clear or obvious error by not reducing the offense level. See United States v. Waskom , 179 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 1999) (§ 2X1.1(b)(2) requires no reduction for conspirator who made “substantial progress” in criminal endeavor). Garcia also contends that there was no evidentiary support for the drug-quantity calculation used to establish his base offense level. The Presentence Report (PSR) relied on the corroborated statements of co-conspirators that linked Garcia directly to the transportation of 17.22 kilograms of cocaine. Because Garcia did not present any evidence to rebut the PSR’s factual findings, the district court was entitled to rely on those findings. See United States v. Ayala , 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, the PSR’s findings were not the sort of “[b]ald, conclusionary statements” we disapproved of in United States v. Elwood , 999 F.2d 814, 817-18 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.