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

I, David C. Bloom, Chief Executive Officer of Chelsea
Property Group, Inc. ("the Company"), pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2003 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 such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this
26th day of February, 2004.

| | /s/ David C. Bloom
David C. Bloom
Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------

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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3307 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3307

      To eliminate the extension of Federal Pandemic Unemployment 
                 Compensation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2021

   Mr. Hern introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To eliminate the extension of Federal Pandemic Unemployment 
                 Compensation, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Help Wanted Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THE EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT 
              COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 2104(e)(2) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 
9023(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``September 6, 2021'' and inserting 
``the first Monday that is on or after the date that is 14 days after 
the date of enactment of the Help Wanted Act''.
    (b) Amount.--Section 2104(b)(3)(A)(ii) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 
9023(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``September 6, 2021'' and 
inserting ``the first Monday that is on or after the date that is 14 
days after the date of enactment of the Help Wanted Act''.
    (c) Applications.--Section 2104(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 
and Economic Security Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
            ``(5) Application deadline.--As a condition of the 
        agreement under this section, a State may not accept an 
        application for an increase in unemployment benefits under this 
        section on or after the date of enactment of the Help Wanted 
        Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000827164
<NAME> EXHIBITRONIX, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,724
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,428
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10,152)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,724)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700001

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### OWEN S. LOWRIE Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal fro m the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Col onel M atthew J. Kent
, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Co lonel Daniel R. Kazmier , USMC. For Appellant : Co mmander C. Eric Roper, JAGC , USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 27 April 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , H UTCHISON , and L OCHNER , Appellate Military Judg es

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRACEY MACKEY ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 17

- 3760 STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 9, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County , Lawrence J. Semento , Judge. Tracey Mackey, Wewahitchka, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

- Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. Appellant, Tracey Mack e y, appeals the summary d enial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to r ule 3.850, Fl orida R ules of Crim inal Proc edure

. In his amended motion, he raised four claims, one of which was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness wh o would have offered key testimony supporting
his defense at trial. The trial court denied this claim , reasoning that it was successive.2

On appeal, Appellant argues this was error . We agree and reverse as to that claim only.
We otherwise affirm.
The rec ord reflects that the trial court summarily denied Appellant ’s original rule 3.850 motion (the “original motion”) on the merits , after addressing this same claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call th e key witness

. Appellant appealed that denial, and this court reversed, finding that his original motion was facially insufficient , and t hat Appellant was entitled to an opportunity to amend

. Mackey v. State , 219 So. 3d
1009 , 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). On remand, Appellant filed the instant amended motion for postconviction relief. Although the trial court denied Appellant’s original motion on the merits, this court
reversed that order based on the fac ial insufficiency of Appellant ’ s motion, providing Appellant the opportunity to file an amended motion. Thus, the original motion was not
decided on the merits , and the refore Appellant ’ s key witne ss claim in the amended motion
cannot be considered

. See Crescenzo v. State , 987 So. 2d 150, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“ [A] successive motion that raises the same grounds as a prior motion may not be dismissed if those grounds were not previously adjudicated on their merits.” ( citation
omitted ) ) ; see also Rosenkrantz v. Hall , 172 So. 2d 518 , 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ( “ [A] n order which is reversed must be treated as though the order had never been rendered

. ” (citing , inter alia , S

. Fl

a. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read , 61 So. 125 ( Fla. 1913)) )

. Further,
we find that the amended motion is facially sufficient as to this claim. We therefore reverse the summary denial and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting Appellant’s key witness claim , or to hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm as to Appellant ’ s other claims.3

AFFIRMED in part ; REVERSED in pa rt ; REMANDED. TORPY , LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Filed 4/12/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 72

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Kenneth Trowbridge, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20100363

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Gerald H. Rustad, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Nathan K. Madden, Assistant State’s Attorney, Williams County State’s Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 2047, Williston, N.D. 58802, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Trowbridge

No. 20100363

Per Curiam.

[¶1]The State appeals from the district court’s order reducing Kenneth Trowbridge’s sentence.  While the State may appeal the grant of a motion to reduce sentence, State v. Gunwall, 522 N.W.2d 183, 185 n.1 (N.D. 1994), the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Trowbridge’s motion.  We summarily affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers
* 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 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50630

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RENE RAMOS-CARABANTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-535-1

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Rene RamosCarabantes raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States

v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 2005), which held

that the admission of a certificate of nonexistence of record,

which reflected that the deported defendant had not received

consent to reenter the United States, did not violate a

defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                         Nanopierce Technologies, Inc
                       Computation of Net Loss Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three months ended September 30,

                                                      1998                1997
<S>                                         <C>                  <C>
Net loss                                             ($553,985)          ($32,802)
 
Series A preferred stock dividend                      (45,313)        
                                                    ----------          --------- 

Net loss applicable to common shareholders           ($599,298)          ($32,802)
                                                    ==========          =========
 
Weighted average number
of common shares                                    12,385,392          3,833,355
                                                    ==========          =========
 
Net loss per share                                      ($0.06)            ($0.01)
                                                    ==========          =========
</TABLE>


Diluted loss per share is not presented as the effect of the potential
conversion of preferred stock to common stock would decrease loss per share.



                    See notes to the financial statements.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 161 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 161

   To limit fees paid to outside attorneys who represent the Federal 
                              Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To limit fees paid to outside attorneys who represent the Federal 
                              Government.

    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 ``Outside Counsel Fee Limitation Act 
of 1991''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON ATTORNEY FEES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following 
limitations shall apply with respect to fees, paid from appropriated 
sums, to attorneys who are not Federal employees but who represent the 
United States (including any Federal agency or Federal official acting 
in official capacity):
            (1) No fee shall exceed the rate of $125 per hour of work.
            (2) The total of such fees paid to a single attorney or law 
        firm in a single year shall not exceed $1,000,000.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

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

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

 November 25, 2015

a1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

152247

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 152247

COA: 320560

Kent CC: 13-000380-FH

AMDEBIRHAN ABDERE ALEMU,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 7, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 

7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this 

order, and shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the plea bargain’s 

stipulation that the People would take “no position on 7411” precludes the People from 

filing this application; and (2) whether the People’s formal adoption of “no position” in 

the Court of Appeals waived their ability to request relief in this Court. The parties 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3411]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-179, MM Docket Nos. 96-7, 96-12, RM-8732, RM-8845, RM-8741, File 
No. BPH-960206IE]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Banks, Redmond, Sunriver, Corvallis 
and The Dalles, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; denial.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies the petition for reconsideration filed by 
Madgekal Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station KFLY, Corvallis, 
Oregon, as repetitive and, pursuant to Section 1.429(b) of the rules, 
as based on facts not previously presented. It also affirms the 
Commission's Report and Order granting the upgrade of Station KDBX 
(FM), Banks, Oregon, from Channel 298C2 to Channel 298C1, filed by 
Common Ground Broadcasting, superseded by American Radio Systems 
License Corp., and subsequently superseded by CBS, Inc; the 
substitution of Channel 269C2 for Channel 298C2 at Redmond, Oregon; the 
allotment of Channel *268C3 at The Dalles filed by LifeTalk 
Broadcasting Association; and the allotment of Channel 224C2 at 
Sunriver, Oregon, filed by Hurricane Broadcasting, Inc. In addition, 
the Report and Order denied a settlement agreement between American 
Radio Systems License Corp. and Madgekal Broadcasting Inc. in which 
Madgekal Broadcasting Inc. would accept an upgrade for Station 
KFLY(FM), Corvallis, Oregon, from Channel 268C2 to Channel 268C1 for a 
payment of $950,000. The staff also denied Madgekal Broadcasting Inc.'s 
competing proposal filed as a one-step upgrade application upgrading 
Station KFLY to Channel 268C at Corvallis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket Nos. 96-7, 96-12, adopted 
January 24, 2001, and released January 26, 2001. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street NW, 
Washington, Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not 
apply to this proceeding.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-3411 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11162-002]


Wisconsin Power and Light Company; Notice of Modifying a 
Restricted Service List for Comments on a Programmatic Agreement for 
Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the 
National Register of Historic Places

December 13, 2001.
    On September 24, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued a notice for the Prairie du Sac Project (FERC No. 
11162-002) proposing to establish a restricted service list for the 
purpose of developing and executing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for 
managing properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the 
National Register of Historic Places. The Prairie du Sac Project is 
located in Sauk and Columbia Counties in central Wisconsin. Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company is the prospective licensee.
    Rule 2010 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve 
administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted 
service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The 
restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the 
service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority 
establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the 
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. The 
following changes to the existing restricted service list are noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Add ``Larry Garvin, Executive Director of Heritage Preservation, 
Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 667, Black River Falls, WI 
54615''.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31236 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Amendment to Citrix Systems, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. 
 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Citrix Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) desires to amend the Citrix Systems, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to (i) increase the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under the Plan by 5.4 million shares of common stock,
par value $.001 per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”) and (ii) increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance units or stock grants by
500,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Plan Amendment”); and 
 WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, subject to stockholder approval,
the Board of Directors of the Company approved the Plan Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 15 of
the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 

 “At no time shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to or subject to outstanding Awards granted under the Plan (including
pursuant to Incentive Options), nor the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Incentive Options, exceed 15,500,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Plan. In addition to the foregoing, at no time
shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Units or Stock Grants exceed 1,000,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Plan.” 

 

	2.	The Plan Amendment shall be effective upon approval of the stockholders of the Company at the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. If the Plan Amendment is not so approved at such
meeting, then the amendment to the Plan set forth herein shall be void ab initio. 

  

	3.	Except herein above provided, the Plan is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.