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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2377 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2377

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that future increases 
 in the monthly amount paid by the State of New York to blind disabled 
veterans shall be excluded from the determination of annual income for 
  purposes of payment of pension by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1993

  Mr. King (for himself and Mr. Levy) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that future increases 
 in the monthly amount paid by the State of New York to blind disabled 
veterans shall be excluded from the determination of annual income for 
  purposes of payment of pension by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM INCOME DETERMINATION FOR 
              PENSION PURPOSES.

    Section 1503 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
            (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (10) 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``, and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) amounts equal to amounts paid to a veteran by the 
        State of New York under a program of that State to make monthly 
        payments to qualifying veterans who are blind and totally 
        disabled, but only to the extent that such amounts are 
        attributable to any increase in the monthly amount of such 
        payments that is provided after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph.''.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.16

Ultimate Electronics, Inc.
Bonus Plans
for Fiscal Years Ended
January 31, 2001 and January 31, 2002

Under our bonus plans, our executive officers may be awarded bonuses from an annual bonus pool, quarterly performance bonuses and discretionary bonuses determined
by the Board. The parameters under the annual bonus pool are changed from year to year at the discretion of the Board.

Fiscal 2001.In fiscal 2001, the annual bonus pool was equal to $380,000 plus 14% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus
accrual, in excess of $23,800,000.

Fiscal 2002.In fiscal 2002, the annual bonus pool was equal to 12.25% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus accrual, in
excess of $26,500,000 up to $31,200,000, plus 14% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus accrual, in excess of $31,200,000.

---

QuickLinks
EX-10.19





 Exhibit 10.19 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

2013 STOCK OPTION PLAN 

WHEREAS, the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc.
Amended and Restated 2013 Stock Option Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 (as amended, the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company have determined it in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan pursuant to
Section 13 thereof to provide for an additional number of Shares (as defined in the Plan) currently available under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE,
effective as of the date approved by the Company’s shareholders, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such
terms in the Plan. 


  

	 	2.	 Stock Subject to the Plan. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Plan shall be amended and
restated in its entirety to reflect the increase in available options to read as follows: 


 “Subject to the
provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued upon exercise of such Options is Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven (80,247) Shares.” 

Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

This Amendment has been adopted by the Board of Directors as of June 23, 2016.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04-18-00258-CV

THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS 

($38,400.00) UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI00346

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Discovery is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EG01-45-000]

Take notice that on January 19, 2001, Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. (Constellation) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), an amended and restated application for redetermination of exempt wholesale generator status.

                    Any person desiring to be heard concerning the amended and restated application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the amended and restated application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before March 1, 2001, and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection or on the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protest may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-4343  Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE *v.*JONATHAN I. RAPOPORT

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn. App. 269 (AC 30758), is denied.

*908
      *Jonathan I. Rapoport,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Kimberly A. Knox*and *Kenneth J. Bartschi,*in opposition.

Decided June 2, 2010
#### The BOEING COMPANY, Successor to McDonnell Douglas Corporation, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 09-1302.

Sept. 28, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in No. 09-1302 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in No. 09-1298 granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
#### In the Matter of MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, Debtor, Atul C. Shah, Appellant, v. Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Appellee.

No. 13-2647-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 19, 2014.

Atul C. Shah, Troy, MI, for Appellant.

Jeffrey Rhodes, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment and order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Atul Shah, proceeding pro *se,*appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, *J.)*affirming the judgment of a bankruptcy court disallowing his proof of claim. Shah had asserted claims for violations of his First Amendment rights; discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Michigan Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; as well as unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VIL We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conduct a plenary review of a decision of a district court functioning as an intermediate appellate court in a bankruptcy case, review *de novo*the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions, and accept the bankruptcy court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. *See In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.,*714 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2013).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the *88bankruptcy court properly disallowed Shah’s proof of claim. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the bankruptcy court in its thorough and well-reasoned order. As Shah did not raise any substantive arguments with respect to his First Amendment claim, he has therefore abandoned this claim on appeal. *See Lo-Sacco v. City of Middletown,*71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).

We have considered all of Shah’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2279 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2279

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk or measured dose 
     form subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk or measured dose 
     form subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

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

SECTION 1. TACROLIMUS.

    (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:

      

       ``  9902.31.12   Tacrolimus in measured dose              No change      No change      On or before     
                         and bulk form (CAS No.                                                 12/31/94      ''
                         104987-11-3) (provided for                                                            .
                         in subheadings 2934.90.47                                                              
                         and 3004.90.60).............  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of approval of 
tacrolimus by the Food and Drug Administration.

                                 <all>
```
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-17646

 

 

UNITED INVESTORS INCOMEPROPERTIES

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

  Missouri                                          43-1483942

(State or other jurisdictionof                         (I.R.S. Employer

 incorporation ororganization)                        Identification No.)

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
Order entered June 24, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00489

- CV

JOHN O'BRIEN, Appellant

V.

CARA BAKER, AS THE E XECUTRIX OF THE ESTA TE OF KENNETH BAKER,

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwa ll County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR14

- 10A



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellee’s June 22, 2015 unopposed second motion for extension of time to

file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 26, 2015

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
SCHEDULE P 

(Form 8865)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Acquisitions, Dispositions, and Changes of Interests 

in a Foreign Partnership (under section 6046A)

▶ Attach to Form 8865. See Instructions for Form 8865.

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8865 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-1668

2017

Name of person filing Form 8865 Filer’s identifying number

Name of foreign partnership EIN (if any) Reference ID number (see instr.)

Part I Acquisitions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person from whom your interest was acquired

(b) 

Date of acquisition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest acquired

(d) 

Basis in 

interest acquired

(e) 

% of interest 

before acquisition

(f) 

% of interest 

after acquisition

Part II Dispositions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person who acquired your interest

(b) 

Date of disposition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest disposed

(d) 

Basis in 

interest disposed

(e) 

% of interest 

before disposition

(f) 

% of interest 

after disposition

Part III Change in Proportional Interest

(a) 

Description of change

(b) 

Date of change

(c) 

FMV of 

interest

(d) 

Basis in 

interest

(e) 

% of interest 

before change

(f) 

% of interest 

after change

Part IV Supplemental Information Required To Be Reported (see instructions)

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 8865. Cat. No. 25943Q Schedule P (Form 8865) 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   67083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           869960
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         51797
<OTHER-SE>                                     (854674)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     67083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
!"	#$%&''('''

	
#	
)
$%*''('''

+	
)
$%,'('''"#	

-  
!"	#

./
- 
!"	##	
)
$

%0('12('''

34./
$%5''('''6%,'('''	")
-	!

	
)
-7

89:;<:=>=

"!!#
	))
#!!	!?	

	


!	
#/
"!	
@A		
!

/!"	!#
!"	)
-//


	
!@

AB/	
!$

C!"- 
#
)!,#

"

#/
"!#	
@

D
/
)		-*,#

")!$

EF"#/
"!#	
"G EF"##	!-)/"G

E%&&2('''6%1''(5,'H	/7@

E0'!)
@ EI
!	!*#

?) "-	
  
!"	#(?/
) "
5@,#

@

F"	
	
?)

??	
-



	))
-#	#@

/


JKLMNOKPQRPSLMTLUPVMWSXTYSWSRXSZX[M\LWXSP]



	))
-@^	
	#	
)
-!-


"#/
@

	


	
#	
	#	
)
-!/!"


	_	
#	-)!1'!
-




UW`PW\WVVMMSKWabPSL]JPcXLUXSLUPYQ[LdeaPWQ[MT

")
@

fg<=g<9

hJXV]XSZW[JRRP[[TJVTWQbX[W[XZSXYRWSLYSWSRXWV

	
!

-

?!#
	))
"))
	


\PZXSSXSZTWQbPQ[cUMWQPSMLYSWSRXWVVaQPW]a

!!
-	

	))
-!@F"i@@

#
	
/)/j!6i7	




67k!
-/
!)
!?	

	


!@l"	)	!/))
	-))!


-

"!("	!!#
	)
/!
"
-	

SPP][MTTWQbPQ[WS]QWSRUPQ[cUMWQPXSLUPXQYQ[Lme

!#	
@

3"C
!!!#

  
!"	#
-#	
)
/
-!?	

	


!@^	-	
)
#!	!	#
!

?	

	
!""	!	
))H#	

-

]XTYRJVLXP[M\LWXSXSZYSWSRXWVW[[X[LWSRPn

?	

	
	!
	
-		-/)
	 "$

o!
#-"
5'!G

/?!
	))#	
	#!	
"#	
G

 
!"	#)
!("##)	




 


"
1'#

"!	_

	
"
/
(	##)	
	
@

I"##)	

	!

	())?!/!?

)-??)-	(
-))
	?!

/!?)		?)?	

	
!@

I
--		
(?	

	
!/!")


)		?	)	B/	
!"#@

p=q<>>

r=<=stuv<=

wCFwx3A0'00
	

	



	

	
 

 !"#$%%$ !&#!'!()#!*(+"#!,-,,  ,

./012345/678/09::17756;<=354=>

?
			
@A
@
	B	

CDEDFGDHEIIEDHJKJDLMNOPQGRRRJDSTULVWXUJIFJDL

VYLZJEKVTDLCDEDFJSEDSEDVLZJIRJDSJIUIV[GSJ\WX


@
	
]A

@	^


	A


_VGDLCDEDFGDHEIIEDHJKJDLERVDHQGLZNOPYTDS\YVIED`

Aa
^	
A
]A
	




b
@
	

A	A

@^	
A
c

	
^
A	bd
@
	]A

A

	^

	


e@

fg
A




A

@

h=6i</640=:4jk=0=64117

NOPUIV[GSJ\CDEDFGERHTEIEDLJJ\YVIREDS\ERJFVDLIEFL\

c
			
]A







A
A




^	l

mnn
	o	

l	

A


	A

a
		
	


	
A


@	






e
			@


m	o	

l	

pg
@
	A


			@
c
	@
	
A

	@	@

]A
@A
@
A
@		
e@

A





qdgggggA
r


A

]A
c



	^	
	d
@
	

LZJUTIFZE\JUIGFJVYLZJYEIKMsZJGDLJIJ\LIELJG\CtJS


	
e@

A

@^	
A
	

	


	

@A

A
	





u
@
	
	]A
	


vg



A

	


A

A

	@	@

]A
@	@
	c
a
	 bg
?

	
	
Ac
	A


vgw

A
	



x/y4/933>z

{


@
	A

@
{

VYCFJ\M|VTIRVFERNOPVYCFJ\EIJRG\LJSGDLZJLJRJUZVDJ


@	
o
	
	

	

PHIGFTRLTIJVINEIKOJI[GFJPHJDF`VICDS`VTIRVFERNOP

VYCFJELYEIKJI\MHV[M

{	


	
@	


@
@


	
^A@
	A
o	



}VED~IVHIEKMVDLEFL`VTIRVFERNOPVYCFJYVIERG\LVY

@	

	


./0168/0=45/6

{
		
	


{	
@
@

	




@
w
@
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 51250 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. QUENTIN LAVELLE JEFFRIES , Defendant

- Appellant

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

_______________________ ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
(Opinion May 13, 2016, 5 Cir., __________, ____________ F.3d _________) Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, we DENY the petition for panel rehearing and note the following:
1. Since the filing of Jeffries’ petitio n for rehearing en banc, our court
has ruled that Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) does not apply to the career offender sentencing guidelines definition in United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.2 (a)(2). In re
Arnick , 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11030 *2 (5th Cir. Jun. 17, 2016).No. 14

- 51250

2 2. Even assuming arguendo that Johnson does apply to the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), nowhere in his belated briefing to our

court last year , his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, or h is petition for rehearing, has Jeffries demonstrated that he was sentenced under the residual clause. It is certainly not “clear” or “obvious” under plain error review that his conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.02 for the crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon causing physical injury to which he pleaded guilty is not a “use of force” conviction under 4B1.2(a)(1) or an enumerated offense under Application Note 1 to § 4B1.2(a). See United States v. Guzman , 797 F.3 d 346 (5th Cir. 2015) ; c f. Beckles v. United States , No. 15

- 8544, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4142 (U.S. Jun. 27, 2016)(granting certiorari on a case involving whether a sawed

- off shotgun is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)); United States v. Soto

- Rivera , 811 F.3 d 53 (1st Cir. 2016)(addressing crime of felon in possession of a firearm under § 4B1.2(a)(2) and application notes); United States v. Lipscomb , 619 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2010 )(plurality opinion addressing whether crime of possession of a sawed

- off shotgun wa s a crime of violence). The Supreme Court did not strike down the “use of force” prong in Johnson and, indeed, since that time has applied a similar “use of force” prong in a case of a reckless assault. Voisine v. Armstrong , 195 L. Ed. 2d
736 (2016)(“use of force” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A) includes reckless assault).