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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3391 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3391

 To allow for the continuation of critical access hospital designation 
   for certain hospitals in geographic areas experiencing population 
                                growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2009

Ms. Jenkins (for herself, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and 
 Mr. Tiahrt) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow for the continuation of critical access hospital designation 
   for certain hospitals in geographic areas experiencing population 
                                growth.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING THE CONTINUATION OF CAH DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN 
              HOSPITALS.

    Section 1820(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395i-4(c)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by inserting ``, or was located in such 
a rural area at the time that the hospital was originally designated as 
a critical access hospital under this paragraph (but subsequently such 
a rural area was redesignated as an urban area, as defined in section 
1886(d)(2)(D)),'' after ``(or equivalent unit of local government) in a 
rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D))''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 42222-1-II.

Division Two.

November 6, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John James Babner, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 08-1-01549-3, Katherine M. Stolz, J, entered May 12, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Worswick, C.J.,

concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall and Penoyar, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James L. Schaeffer, 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 to my knowledge:



|Date: March 30, 2004 | /s/JAMES L. SCHAEFFERJames L. Schaeffer Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---

QuickLinks
EX-35 (a)
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000

Annual Statement as to Compliance
BAFC 2006-2

I, H. Randall Chestnut, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A., (the
"Servicer"), hereby certify as pursuant to section 2.17 of the Servicing
Agreement between Banc of America Funding Corporation (together with its
permitted successors and assigns, the "Depositor") and Bank of America National
Association, as Servicer (together with its permitted successors and assigns,
the "Servicer") that: (i) a review has been made under my supervision of the
Servicer's activities under this agreement during the 2006 calendar year and
(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under this agreement in all material respects
throughout the calendar year 2006.


March 1, 2007


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name:  H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 12, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00901-CV

IN RE THOMAS GUTIERREZ, JR., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-18031

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 7, 2014, relator Thomas Gutierrez, Jr. filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator claims the underlying contempt order is void 

and requests that he be discharged from confinement. 

Relator has not provided a sufficient record and, therefore, has not shown 

that he is entitled a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), (D); 
2

id. 52.7(a)(1). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

We also deny relator’s motion for emergency relief. 

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3305 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 224 South Boulder Avenue in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, as the ‘‘H. Dale Cook Federal Building and 

United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3305 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 224 South Boulder Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘H. Dale Cook Fed5 eral Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘H. Dale 

11 Cook Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3305 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United 

house’’. Cook Federal Building and United States CourtAvenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘H. Dale States courthouse located at 224 South Boulder
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*TODD WATSON

(AC 32756)

Gruendel, Robinson and Bear, Js.

Argued January 6

officially released January 24, 2012

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc. v. TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00610

- CV Trial court case number: 2011

- 43156 Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County Appellee/cross

- appellant TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company has filed a “Corrected Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule,” requesting that we modify the briefing schedule to reduce the number of briefs to be filed in this appeal and to avoid repetition in the briefs. We grant the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER that the briefing schedule in this case will be as follows:
 Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc.’s appella nt’s brief will be due 30 days after the complete record is filed;
 TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company’s combined response brief and cross

- appellant’s brief will be due 30 days after Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc.’s brief is filed;
 Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc.’s combined re ply brief and cross

- appellee’s response brief will be due 30 days after TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company’s brief is filed; and
 TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company’s reply brief will be due 20 days after Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc.’s combined reply brief and cross

- appel lee’s brief is filed. We further DISMISS TGS

- NOPEC Geophysical Company’s previously

- filed “Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule” as moot. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: October 17, 2013
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1456. FREDERICK D. GREEN v. THE STATE. 

In 2008, Frederick D. Green was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated

assault. We affirmed Green’s convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion.

See Case No. A09A1273 (Sept. 8, 2009). Green thereafter filed a motion to vacate his

convictions, asserting that his convictions were void due to ineffective assistance of

counsel and error in the jury charge. His motion was denied, and this Court dismissed

his subsequent appeal.

1 See Case No. A16A1862 (July 18, 2016). In doing so, we

explained that Green’s motion was in substance a challenge to the validity of his

conviction, but a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly void judgment of

conviction is not one of the established procedures for challenging a judgment in a

criminal case, and an appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed. See

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper v. State, 286 Ga.

216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). 

In March 2021, Green filed a “Motion to Null, Void or Vacate Illegal

Sentence.” In his motion, Green concedesthat his sentence is not void. See Crumbley

v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991) (“A sentence is void if the court

imposes punishment that the law does not allow.”). Rather, he contends that his

convictions arose from an alleged conspiracy between the trial court, the State, and

1 This Court also dismissed Green’s appeals from the denial of a motion to

vacate his convictions based on inconsistent verdicts, see Case No. A16A0316 (Dec.

9, 2015), and the denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial, see Case No.

A17A0204 (Sept. 20, 2016).

May 26, 2021
his counsel, which Green asserts resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel and

error in the jury charge. The trial court denied Green’s motion, and he again appeals.

We lack jurisdiction.

As explained in Case No. A16A1862, Green’s motions are an improper

challenge to the validity of his convictions, and an appeal from the denial of such a

motion is subject to dismissal. See Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper, 286 Ga. at 218

(1). In addition, “[i]t is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad

infinitum,” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000)

(punctuation omitted), and the prior dismissal order in this case constitutes binding

law of the case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011). 

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/26/2021
<PAGE>

                     AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         AMENDMENT No. 2 dated as of August 8, 2000 ("Amendment No. 2") to the
Employment Agreement dated August 28, 1998 as amended November 30, 1998 (the
"Employment Agreement") by and between G+G Retail, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") and Jay Galin, an individual resident at 211 East 70th Street,
New York, New York 10021 (the "Executive").

         The Company desires to provide for the Executive's continued employment
with the Company and the Executive wishes to accept such continued employment
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Employment
Agreement, as amended hereby.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound,
hereby agree as follows:

         1. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

         2. The term of Executive's employment under the Employment Agreement
shall be extended for a further period of three years, beginning on August 28,
2000 and ending on August 27, 2003. References in the Employment Agreement to
the "Employment Period" shall mean the term of Executive's employment by the
Company as extended hereby.

         3. Section 2.2 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows:

                  "2.2     Term

                  Subject to earlier termination pursuant to Section 4, this
Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall continue until August 27,
2003 (the "Consultation Period")."

         4. Except as specifically amended above, the Employment Agreement is
and shall continue to be in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects.

         5. This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of
laws principles.

         6. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment No. 2 and
all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the
same agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment
No. 2 on the date and year first above written.



                                      G+G RETAIL, INC.



                                      By:  /s/ Scott Galin
                                         _______________________________________
                                           Scott Galin
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer



                                           /s/ Jay Galin
                                      __________________________________________
                                           Jay Galin
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION


Parties: Featherlite, Inc. (formerly Featherlite Mfg., Inc., "Featherlite")
         Mitchell Motorcoach Sales, Inc. ("Mitchell Motorcoach")
         Harvey G. Mitchell and Patricia A. Mitchell ("Mitchells")
         Robert M. Meixner ("Meixner")
         Mark Molder ("Molder")
         (Mitchells, Meixner and Molder are collectively referred to as 
         the "Shareholders")

Date:    December 31, 1998

Recitals:

         A. Featherlite, Mitchell Motorcoach and the Shareholders are parties to
an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated May 8, 1998 (the "Agreement"). All
capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to them in the
Agreement.

         B. The Agreement provided in Section 2.7 for an adjustment to the
number of Featherlite Shares issued initially to Mitchell Motorcoach and the
maximum number of Earnout Shares available for later issuance based on the
Closing Balance Sheet.

         C. The Closing Balance Sheet was delivered and an adjustment made in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement but subsequently it has been
determined that a further adjustment is required. The parties hereto intend for
this Amendment to authorize and implement such further adjustment.

Agreements:

         The parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

         1. A further adjustment to number of Featherlite Shares in the manner
provided by Section .7 of the Agreement is required.

         2. With regard to 1998 Vogue coach #VM258 the adjustment for proper
valuation is a reduction of $69,645.

         3. With regard to 1997 Vogue coach #VM203 the adjustment for proper
valuation is a reduction of $97,914.

         4. The total adjustment of $167,559 shall be made in the manner
provided in Section 2.7 of the Agreement as if the adjustment had been made in
the Closing Balance Sheet. Therefore, Mitchell Motorcoach authorizes the
delivery of 18, 287 Featherlite Shares to Featherlite from the shares pledged
pursuant to Section 5.19 of the Agreement, the cancellation of such shares and
an increase in the maximum number of Earnout Shares in the same number.


<PAGE>

         5. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.


                                           Featherlite, Inc.

                                           By:                                
                                              ---------------------------------

                                           Mitchell Motorcoach Sales, Inc.

                                           By:                               
                                              ---------------------------------


-----------------------------              ------------------------------------
Robert M. Meixner                          Harvey G. Mitchell


-----------------------------              ------------------------------------
Mark Molder                                Patricia A. Mitchell
1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40053

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD MOISES QUIJIJE-CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-3-6

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Richard Moises Quijije-Chavez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Quijije-Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40053 Document: 00514207511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 17-40053

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40053 Document: 00514207511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001088399
<NAME>                        EZ TALK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         53,692
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,692
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 53,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,495
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       205
<OTHER-SE>                                     51,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   53,692
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 21
  Delek US
    Holdings, Inc.
  Subsidiaries
    of the Registrant
  State ofCompany Name:

Incorporation:MAPCO Express, Inc.

DEWilliamson Oil Co., Inc.

ALGasoline Associated Services,
    Inc.

ALLiberty Wholesale Co., Inc

ALDelek Refining, Inc.

DEDelek U.S. Refining GP, LLC

TXDelek Refining, Ltd.

TXDelek Pipeline Texas, Inc.

TXMPC Pipeline Acquisition,
    Inc.

TXDelek Land Texas, Inc.

TXMPC Land Acquisition, Inc.

TXDelek Marketing & Supply,
    Inc.

DEDelek Marketing & Supply,
    LP

DEDelek Marketing GP, LLC

DEDelek Finance, Inc.

DEMAPCO Fleet, Inc.

DE
Exhibit 10.19


     

    
      

      

    

     

    Exhibit
      10.19

    


     

    February
      15, 2007

     

     

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    ZYNEX
      MEDICAL, INC.

     

     

    For
      value
      received, Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. (“Zynex”) promises to pay to the order of
      Peter J. Leveton (hereinafter "Holder"), in legal tender, the sum of $82,524.00
      plus interest on the outstanding balance at the annual rate of 8.25%. This
      Note
      commences February 15, 2007 (hereinafter "Commencement Date").

    


    The
      note
      will be amortized in eight (8) equal payments of principal and interest of
      $10,637.19 each, with the first payment due March 15, 2007 and each additional
      payment due on the 15th
      day of
      the next following month until paid in full. All principal and interest shall
      be
      fully repaid no later than October 15, 2007. The note may be prepaid without
      penalty at Zynex’s option at any time. 

    


    In
      the
      event of a default under the terms of this Note and upon ten days following
      written demand by Holder to cure such default and such default having not been
      cured, Holder may, at Holder's sole and absolute discretion, declare all
      remaining principal and interest immediately due and payable. Waiver by Holder
      hereof to enforce any provisions of this Note shall not operate to bar Holder's
      rights to enforce any provisions of this Note at any later time or for any
      later
      default. 

    


    All
      notices, payments and performance of the obligations under this Note shall
      be
      made to Peter J. Leveton or heirs or assigns at 8101 S. Peninsula Drive.
      Littleton, CO 80120 or such other location as the Holder may notify Zynex in
      writing. All notices or demands to the Company shall be given in writing to
      the
      Company’s Chief Executive Officer at its principal office location at 8100
      Southpark Way, Unit A-9, Littleton, Colorado 80120. Notices to all parties
      will
      be deemed provided when actually received by the other party. 

    


    This
      Note
      shall be governed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Colorado.
      

    


    


    /s/
      Thomas Sandgaard  

    Zynex
      Medical Holdings, Inc.

    Thomas
      Sandgaard

    President
      and Chief Executive Officer