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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3275 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3275

To amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle in section 31101 of 
title 49, United States Code, to exclude certain farm vehicles, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2009

    Ms. Markey of Colorado (for herself and Mr. Smith of Nebraska) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle in section 31101 of 
title 49, United States Code, to exclude certain farm vehicles, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE.

    Section 31101(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
                    ``(A)(i) except as provided in clause (ii), has a 
                gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of 
                at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater; or
                    ``(ii) in the case of a vehicle with farm-
                designated license plates that is engaged in the 
                transportation of agricultural commodities or farm 
                supplies or a vehicle that is controlled by a farmer 
                and used to transport agricultural commodities or farm 
                supplies to or from a farm, has a gross vehicle weight 
                rating or gross vehicle weight the greater of which 
                exceeds the minimum weight of a commercial motor 
                vehicle established by the State in which it is being 
                operated;''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF GRANTS FOR STATES THAT INCREASE THE MINIMUM 
              WEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.

    Section 31102 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
    ``(e) Preservation of Grants for States That Increase the Minimum 
Weight for Commercial Motor Vehicles.--The Secretary may not withhold 
grant funding from a State under this section solely because the State 
authorizes drivers of vehicles engaged in the transportation of 
agricultural commodities or farm supplies that have a gross vehicle 
weight of more than 10,000 pounds and less than 26,001 pounds, to 
operate without complying with Federal regulations relating to 
commercial motor vehicles.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



(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 Dex Media, Inc. as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson 
Chairman of the Board of Directors 
and Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2008
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy 

Steven M. Blondy 
Executive Vice President, Chief 
Financial Officer and Director
March 31, 2008
  48
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10424

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HAMID REZA SAYADI-TAKHTEHKAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CR-41-6

- - - - - - - - - -

March 6, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hamid Reza Sayadi-Takhtehkar appeals his convictions for

conspiring to import one or more kilograms of heroin, conspiring

to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one or

more kilograms of heroin, possessing with intent to distribute

one or more kilograms of heroin, and tampering with a witness. 

He argues that the Government failed to prove that Sayadi was

predisposed to commit the offense and that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his motion take foreign
No. 97-10424

-2-

depositions. The evidence is sufficient to prove SayadiTakhtehkar’s predisposition to commit the offenses. United

States v. Byrd, 31 F.3d 1329, 1334-35 (5th Cir. 1994). The

district court’s denial of Sayadi-Takhtehkar’s motion to take

foreign depositions was not an abuse of the court’s broad

discretion. United States v. Dillman, 15 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir.

1994). 

AFFIRMED.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 10 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 8- cr-0 03 14 -PAS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us KEITH JONES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja n S m ith, ap po in te d c ou ns el forKeith J on es , inth is di rectcri m in al ap pe al ,ha s m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er rep res en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d h as fil eda br ie f pu rs ua ntto And

er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d 49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o i ss ue s o f arg uabl e m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andJo ne s’s re vi se d s en te nc e is affi rm ed . Nev erthe le ss , we vac at e an d re m an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f al lo win g t he di st ric t co urt t o c orrecta cl eri cal erro r by do ck et in g J on es ’s no ti ce o f ap pe al , whi chde si gn at edbo th th e am en de d c riminal jud gm en t i n t he pre se ntcas e an d t he fin al ord er i n apa ral le l ci vi l ac ti on fil edun de r 28 U.S.C.§ 2 24 1 (Cas e No. 1 :0 9- cv -2 06 85 -PAS), i n t he afo rem en ti on edciv il cas e as well . AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

2
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT 

This Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Peter Cittadini (the “Executive”) and
Actuate Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) as of December 15, 2014. 
 WHEREAS, on July 24,
2014, the Company and the Executive amended and superseded the Change in Control Agreement, dated January 1, 2008 (the “Prior Agreement”), by and between the Company and the Executive, solely to (i) amend the definition of
a Change in Control to include a liquidation or dissolution of the Company and clarify the definition with respect to a change in the composition of the Board, (ii) ensure that all forms of equity awards were covered by the Prior Agreement,
(iii) amend the definition of Involuntary Termination to clarify the triggers based on reduction in salary or target bonus following a Change in Control and to provide that an Involuntary Termination included a breach of the Prior Agreement by
the Company or the failure of a successor company to assume the Prior Agreement, and (iv) provide that the level of severance benefit under the Prior Agreement is not based on an executive’s tenure with the Company (as so amended and
restated, and as further amended on December 5, 2014, the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that the
period of health care continuation coverage is 12 months following a qualifying Involuntary Termination, as compared to 18 months pursuant to the Prior Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the parties intended that the period of health care continuation coverage provided for in the Agreement was to remain at 18 months as
provided for in the Prior Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement have agreed to amend the Agreement to align with the intention
of such parties. 
 NOW, THERFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the Company, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Clause (i) of “Part Two—Section 3 (Continued Health Coverage)” of the Agreement is hereby amended so that the reference to “the twelve (12) month period” therein is replaced with a
reference to “the eighteen (18) month period.” 

 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment on the day and year first
above written. 
  

			
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Peter I. Cittadini

	Peter I. Cittadini
	
	ACTUATE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas E. McKeever

	Name: Thomas E. McKeever
	 Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel



 [Signature Page to Amendment]
Exhibit
      32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002











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 Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. ("the Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Nam H. Nguyen,
      Chief Financial Officer, hereby 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.








Dated: February
      14, 2006








/s/
      Nam H. Nguyen


Nam
      H.
      Nguyen


Chief
      Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN BIRDT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CHARLIE BECK; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-55115

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08377-JAKJEM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Birdt appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Second Amendment rights. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Peruta v. County of

San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and we affirm.

FILED

NOV 09 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In Peruta v. San Diego, this court, sitting en banc, held that a member of the

general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a

concealed firearm in public, and that a state may impose restrictions, including a

showing of good cause, on concealed carry. Id. at 939. The San Diego and Yolo

County Sheriff’s Department policies interpreting the California statutory good

cause requirement at issue in Peruta therefore survived a Second Amendment

challenge. See id. For the same reasons, the Los Angeles Police Department’s and

the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s policies interpreting the California

statutory good cause requirement do not violate the Second Amendment. 

The motions by amici curiae for leave to file amici briefs are granted. The

Clerk shall file the amici briefs submitted on October 30, 2012 and November 5,

2012. Appellant’s motion to submit the case without oral argument, filed on

October 30, 2012, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-55115
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21601]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former 
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Concord, 
California

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), after carefully 
weighing the environmental consequences of the proposed action, 
announces its decision to implement Alternative 1, the Navy's preferred 
alternative, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former Naval Weapons Station 
Seal Beach, Detachment Concord (NWS Concord), Concord, California. This 
decision will make approximately 4,972 acres of former NWS Concord 
property available to the local community for economic redevelopment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Disposal and reuse under the chosen 
alternative is consistent with the City of Concord's ``Concord Reuse 
Project Area Plan'' and Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990, as amended in 2005. The complete 
text of the Record of Decision (ROD) is available for public viewing on 
the project Web site at http://www.BRACPMO.Navy.mil along with the 
Final EIS and supporting documents. Single copies of the ROD will be 
made available upon request by contacting: Ms. Erica Spinelli, Navy 
BRAC Program Management Office West, Concord EIS, 33000 Nixie Way, 
Building 50, San Diego, California, 92147-0001, telephone 619-524-5096, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3a6b1aaa0a2edb0b3aaada6afafaa83ada2b5baedaeaaaf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="781d0a111b19560b0811161d1414113816190e0156151114">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 2, 2017.
A.M. Nichols,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-21601 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

20, 2024.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00354

- CV

IN RE ALI CHOUDHRI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 27197A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Monday, May 20, 2024 , relator Ali Choudhri filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Missy Medary
, visiting judge of the 333rd District Court of Harris County
, to (1) vacate
her May 2, 2024 order resetting a hearing on relator’s motion for disqualification2

or recusal to Zoom on May 20, 2024 at 3 p.m. and (2) direct the trial court to schedule the hearing to be in person.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, w e deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot and Zimmerer.
Exhibit 32.1

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



                            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 Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I,
David S. Lerner, President and Principal Executive Officer, hereby 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.


Dated: February 11, 2005


/s/ David S. Lerner
--------------------------------------------
David S. Lerner
President and Principal Executive Officer
*

### Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41467 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAIME ZAGAL-MERAZ Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(7:05-CR-381-ALL) Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Appellant, Jaime Zagal-Meraz. United States v. Zagal-Meraz, 203 F. App’x 598 (5th Cir. 2006). On March 30, 2007, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006). Following the Supreme Court’s remand we received supplementalletter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of

Lopez. The government concedes and we agree that, under Lopez, the district court erred in imposing an eight-level enhancement for Appellant’s prior controlled substance conviction. In light of this error, the issue on appeal is whether we should vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing or whether the appeal is now moot. The parties agree that Zagal-Meraz has completed the confinement portion of his sentence and has apparently been deported from the United States, although he remains subject to the terms of his supervised release. This Court recently found a similar case moot when the appellant had alreadybeen released from prison anddeported. See United Statesv. Rosenbaum-Alanis, __F.3d

__, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 2007). Because the defendant in Rosenbaum-Alanis was barred from entering the United States, and therefore could not be resentenced, the Court could not grant the relief requested. Id. at *2. We find Rosenbaum-Alanis controlling, and because Zagal-Meraz is barred from entering the United States, we cannot grant his request to be resentenced. Zagal Meraz recognizes this precedent and wishes to preserve the issue for further review. The appeal is moot and therefore DISMISSED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144 and 33-81011) and Form
S-3 (No. 333-27275) of JP Foodservice, Inc. of our report dated August 2, 1996,
except as to Note 16, which is as of September 10, 1996 and except as to the
pooling of interests with Valley Industries, Inc. and with Squeri Food Service,
Inc., which is as of November 14, 1996, which appears on page F-2 of JP
Foodservice, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 28, 1997.



/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
September 22, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7808

SHAWN PATRICK DICKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

and

LISA RICHARDSON,

Petitioner,

versus

MOLLY Q. RUHL, Clerk; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-

3291-MJG)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Patrick Dickson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Dickson, a Maryland inmate, appeals the order of the

district court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. The district court dismissed Dickson's claims

as to his Montgomery County convictions on the merits and dismissed

without prejudice Dickson's claims regarding his Prince George's

County convictions so that he may file a separate § 2254 petition.

We affirm on the modified grounds that Dickson failed to exhaust

his state remedies.

A prisoner petitioning for federal habeas relief must first

present his claims to state courts and exhaust all available remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c). Dickson's petition reveals that he

failed to exhaust his available state court remedies in Maryland.

See Maryland Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Md. Ann. Code

art. 27, § 645A (1992). We therefore grant a certificate of appealability and modify the judgment to reflect dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and affirm the judgment

as modified. 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated August 14, 1997, originally included in Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.'s
Form 10-K, as amended by Form 10-K/A, for the fiscal year ended June 28, 1997,
and subsequently included in this Form 10-K dated September 29, 1999, into
U.S. Foodservice's (formerly JP Foodservice, Inc.) previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144,
33-88146, 33-81011, 333-37359, 333-43185, 333-47759 and 333-78209) and Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-67553, 333-81323 and 333-84889).

/s/Arthur Andersen LLP
Philadelphia, PA
September 29, 1999