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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1656 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1656

             To suspend temporarily the duty on sethoxydim.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on sethoxydim.

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

SECTION 1. SETHOXYDIM.

    (a) In General.-- Heading 9902.38.09 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/90'' and 
inserting ``12/31/97''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.38.09 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States that was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4393]


Eel River Sawmills, Inc., Fortuna, CA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance (NAFTA-TAA), an investigation was initiated on December 14, 
2000 in response to a petition which was filed by the company on behalf 
of workers at Eel River Sawmills, Inc., Fortuna, California.
    The company has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 5th day of January, 2001.
Linda Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-3289 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00563-CV

A. L., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-17-007487

THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

A.L. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating her parental rights to 

her child.

1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear 

and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and 

that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2).

On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); 

Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental 

rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of 

 

1 We refer to appellant by her initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. 

App. P. 9.8.
2

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court 

that she provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her rights to 

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief. The 

Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a waiver of right to file responses to the 

Anders briefs and the pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on 

appellant’s behalf and appellant’s pro se brief, and have found nothing that would arguably 

support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm the trial court’s final decree terminating appellant’s parental rights.

2

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: December 5, 2019

 

2 As she acknowledges in the brief, counsel’s obligation to her client has not yet been 

discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If appellant, after 

consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the 

Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See 

id. at 27–28.
U. S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT—Internal Revenue Service

RETURN OF INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION AND
ror 1122 | cONSENT OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION INCLUDED NA | LOSG
UNITED STATES CONSOLIDATED INCOME TAX RETURN | oe nr wae i soe some

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1956

or other taxable year beginning ee , 1986
If return is for calendar hi 1
year 1956, file on or before |_@7¢ emir +19
March 15, 1957. If return PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT PLAINLY
is for a year other than a
calendar year, file on or | NAME
before 15th day of third
month following close of | iyumberandairoat - —
such taxable year.
City or town, postal zone number, State —
1. Date incorporated
2. Incorporated under laws of what State? ~ ” a ~
3. Capital stock outstanding at beginning of taxable year (a) ee | (b) Prefered

4. Kind of business
OJ Active — [] Inactive

5. Name of common parent corporation (Give name of corporation which filed the consolidated income tax return for the entire affiliated
group)

6. Address of common parent corporation

7. Internal Revenue District or city and State in which consolidated return is filed

The above-named subsidiary corporation hereby authorizes the above-named common parent corporation (or in the
event of its failure, the Commissioner or the district director) to make a consolidated income tax return on its behalf for
the taxable year for which this form is filed, and for each taxable year thereafter that a consolidated return must be
made under the provisions of the consolidated return regulations.

‘The above-named subsidiary corporation, in consideration of the privilege of joining in the making of a consolidated
return with the above-named common parent corporation, hereby consents to and agrees to be bound by the provisions of
the above-mentioned regulations. Form 1122 must be filed for each taxable year thereafter for which a consolidated
return is filed or is required to he filed under the provisions of the consolidated return regulations.

SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION

I declare under the penalties of perjury that the above-named subsidiary has authorized me to sign this form on its behalf, and that
this form has been examined by me and the information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true, correct, and com-
plete return of information, made in good faith, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations issued thereunder,

Corporate
eal

: Date ~__ Signature - - Title
INSTRUCTIONS

Duplicate originals of this form must be prepared by each subsidiary corporation and each form must be signed under the corporate
seal. One of these forms must be attached to the consolidated income tax return as part thereof; the other must be filed (at or before the
time the consolidated income tax return is filed) in the office of the district director for the district prescribed for the filing of a separate return
by the subsidiary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :1955—-O-392186
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

February 5, 2013

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, February 21, 2013

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Big Ridge, Inc., Docket Nos. LAKE

2009-377, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law 

Judge erred in determining that certain orders were “significant and 

substantial” and due to the operator’s “unwarrantable failure to 

comply.”)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel Training Grants.
    Date: February 21, 2001.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: David E. Maslow, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 
Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard--Room 8054, Bethesda, MD 20892-
7405, 301/496-2330.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 2, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-3457 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 of Patriot Investment Corporation a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bradley S. Shepherd, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Bradley S. Shepherd Date: April 2, 2007 Bradley S. Shepherd Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Richard PIERCE, Petitioner.

No. 14-1946.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. May 1, 2014.

Filed May 14, 2014.

Richard Pierce, Lisbon, OH, pro se.

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Richard Pierce has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.

Pierce pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. In his plea agreement, Pierce acknowledged that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison and waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. The District Court departed from both the mandatory minimum and the guidelines range and sentenced Pierce to 180 months in prison. Pierce appealed, and we upheld the appellate waiver and affirmed his sentence and conviction. *See*C.A. No. 10-3328.

In July 2012, Pierce filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court dismissed the motion on August 23, 2013, and on September 16, 2013, Pierce filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). On April 22, 2014, Pierce filed this mandamus petition in which he requests that we order the District Court to act on his pending Rule 60(b) motion.

A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. *See Sporck v. Peil,*759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir.1985). Determining whether an extraordinary circumstance exists requires a two-part inquiry. First, it must be established that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief. Second, a petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. *Kerr v. United States District Court,*426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Generally, mandamus relief is used to “confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” *Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,*319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943).

Here, Pierce does not have an alternative remedy to direct the District Court to act on his pending motions. However, the delay in this case has not risen to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. *See Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). We are confident that the District Court will act on Pierce’s Rule 60(b) motion in a timely manner. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to refiling if the District Court does not act within 120 days.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1647 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1647

        To suspend temporarily the duty on fastusol C blue 76L.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on fastusol C blue 76L.

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

SECTION 1. FASTUSOL C BLUE 76L.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.32.13  Fastusol C Blue 76L (provided for in subheading                             No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        3204.13.30).............................................  Free                                                31/97           ''

    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.32.13 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that 
        was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Orlando STRAW, Appellant.

No. 10-2991.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 22, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 23, 2010.

Daniel C. Tvedt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.

John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.

Orlando Straw, Cedar Rapids, IA, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Orlando Straw challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. In particular, he challenges (1) the length of his prison term, and (2) a no-contact order imposed as a special condition of his supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable term of imprisonment. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); *United States v. Thunder,*553 F.3d 605, 609 (8th Cir.2009) (revocation sentence above Guidelines range was not substantively unreasonable where defendant repeatedly violated supervised release); *United States v. Tyson,*413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the no-contact order. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1) — (3) (factors for court to consider in ordering special condition of supervised release); *United States v. Simons,*614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir.2010) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Ex-10.26



 





Exhibit 10.26




BLACKBAUD, INC.

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



Board
Members (other than Chairman of the Board):





	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $17,500, payable in cash, for services as a member of the Board; the Chairman of the Audit
Committee would receive an additional $15,000 annually for such service.
	 
	 	•	 	$3,000 per regular meeting attended (4 regularly scheduled meetings per year).


	 
	 	•	 	$1,000 per regular committee meeting attended (4 regularly scheduled meetings per year).
	 
	 	•	 	$1,000 per telephonic board and/or committee meetings.
	 
	 	•	 	An annual grant of restricted stock of the Company worth $60,000 on the date of
grant vesting fully on the first anniversary of the date of grant.





Chairman
of the Board:




	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $50,000, payable in cash, for service as Chairman of the Board.


	 
	 	•	 	An annual grant of restricted stock of the Company worth $90,000 on the date of grant vesting fully on the
first anniversary of the date of grant.
2014-0564.

#### Fronimo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2013-4251. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of the joint motion to remand to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement a settlement agreement, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted and the cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the Board of Tax Appeals.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1751 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1751

  To extend until January 1, 1997, the existing suspension of duty on 
                               graphite.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1997, the existing suspension of duty on 
                               graphite.

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

SECTION 1. GRAPHITE.

    Heading 9902.25.04 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (relating to graphite) is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and 
inserting ``12/31/96''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```