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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2148

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a mandatory minimum

sentence for the unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,

a fugitive from justice, a person who is addicted to, or an unlawful

user of, a controlled substance, or a transferor or receiver of a stolen

firearm, to increase the general penalty for violation of Federal firearms

laws, and to increase the enhanced penalties provided for the possession

of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking

crime.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey,

Mr. PORTER, Mr. KIM, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. DORNAN, Mr.

HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. KING, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. WALSH,

Mr. MCHUGH, and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a mandatory minimum sentence for the unlawful possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice,

a person who is addicted to, or an unlawful user of,

a controlled substance, or a transferor or receiver of

a stolen firearm, to increase the general penalty for

violation of Federal firearms laws, and to increase the

enhanced penalties provided for the possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
2

•HR 2148 IH

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

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR UNLAW4 FUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CON5 VICTED FELON, FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE,

6 ADDICT OR UNLAWFUL USER OF CON7 TROLLED SUBSTANCE, OR TRANSFEROR OR

8 RECEIVER OF STOLEN FIREARM.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(a) of title 18, United

10 States Code, is amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘paragraph

12 (2) or (3) of’’; and

13 (2) by adding at the end the following:

14 ‘‘(5) Whoever knowingly possesses a firearm in viola15 tion of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 922(g), or

16 in violation of subsection (i) or (j), shall be imprisoned

17 not less than 5 years. Notwithstanding any other provision

18 of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend

19 the sentence of any person convicted under this para20 graph, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under

21 this paragraph run concurrently with any other term of

22 imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.’’.
3

•HR 2148 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN GENERAL PENALTY FOR VIOLATION

2 OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

3 Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘$10,000’’; and

7 (2) by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’.

8 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR POSSES9 SION OF FIREARM IN CONNECTION WITH

10 CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING

11 CRIME.

12 Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

13 amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’; and

15 (2) by striking ‘‘twenty’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’.

Æ
#### Delores BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, John Edwards, individually and in his capacity as Principal of Apopka High School, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-14489

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 5, 2007.

*933Mark Vernon Morsch, Mark V. Morsch And Associates, P.A., Winter Park, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian Francis Moes, Orange County School Board, Legal Depatment, Walter A. Ketcham, Jr., Jeanelle Glover Bronson, Ramon Vazquez, Grover, Ketcham, Rutherford, Bronson, Eide *&*Telan, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Delores Bailey, a former student at Apopka High School in Orange County, Florida, appeals the summary judgment granted to Orange County School Board (“the School Board”).1 She also appeals the district court’s grant of the School Board’s motion to strike affidavits that Bailey submitted in response to the School Board’s motion for summary judgment. Bailey sued the School Board for violations of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that she alleges occurred when she was a student and was sexually harassed by a teacher at Apopka High.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find no reversible error. In order to resist summary judgment on either of her claims against the School Board, Bailey must present some evidence that, while she was a student at Apopka High, a School Board official knew of the teacher’s misconduct with Bailey or similar misconduct with other students and was deliberately indifferent to that misconduct. *Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist.,*524 U.S. 274, 277, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 1993, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998); *Sauls v. Pierce County Sch. Dist.,*399 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.2005). The district court correctly found that Bailey did not present evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact as to these elements of her claims. (R.3-59 at 17-24.)

We do not address whether the district court erred in striking the affidavit of Laqueta Mendez Simpkins because, even considering that affidavit, we find that it does not change the result in this case. And, we find no abuse of discretion in the dis*934trict court’s decision to strike portions of Bailey’s affidavit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The Appellant's brief recites that summary judgment was granted to "Defendants-Appellees,” (Blue Br. at 9), and seeks reversal of that order. (Blue Br. at 42.) In reality, however, Appellant voluntarily dismissed all defendants other than the School Board that remained in the case after some claims were remanded to the state court. (R.1-36.) The School Board is the only party that moved for summary judgment.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-4430] 

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C 2331), an investigation was initiated on January 4, 2001, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Melpack, Inc., Mullins, South Carolina.

The petitioner 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 12 day of January, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-3293  Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11566-11567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4566]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Record of Decision (ROD) for Joint Use of Airfield Facilities at 
Kelly Air Force Base (AFB), Texas

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2000, the Air Force signed the ROD for Joint 
Use of Airfield Facilities at Kelly AFB, Texas.
    The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act requires compliance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in implementing base 
closures and realignments for property disposal (10 U.S.C. 2687 note). 
The Air

[[Page 11567]]

Force began a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in 
1996 to fulfill the NEPA requirements. The analysis was completed in 
May 1997 and published as the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Disposal of Kelly AFB (FPEIS).
    After the publication of the FPEIS the Air Force signed a ROD on 
July 24, 1997, indicating disposal of Kelly AFB property would be in 
accordance with the Greater Kelly Development Authority (GKDA) Master 
Plan. The disposal ROD deferred the decision regarding joint (i.e., 
military and civilian) use of the airfield facilities until detailed 
information on civil aircraft operations was available. At the time the 
disposal ROD was signed, the GKDA Master Plan did not include complete 
information fully describing the civil aircraft operations elements of 
the redevelopment.
    The GKDA Master Plan, Appendix D published in January 1998, and 
further refined in October 1999, defined civil aircraft operational 
scenarios associated with redevelopment of Kelly AFB. A Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was completed in August 2000, 
addressing the environmental impacts associated with the anticipated 
civil aircraft operations. The SEIS addressed noise, air quality, and 
land use impacts as well as environmental justice concerns related to 
the updated, projected civil aircraft operations combined with ongoing 
military aircraft operations. Taking into consideration the results of 
the SEIS, the Air Force signed a ROD on December 14, 2000 authorizing 
joint use of the airfield at Kelly AFB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan D. Farthing, HQ AFCEE/ECA, 
3207 North Road, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235-5363, 210-536-3787 
or fax to 210-536-3890.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-4566 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.6
[To be placed on company letterhead.]


[Date]
[Name]
[Insert Address]
Re:    Retention Bonus
Dear [First Name]:
Rosehill Operating Company, LLC (the “Company”) values your contributions to our organization and looks forward to working with you as we consider various strategic alternatives in the coming months.  Your continued leadership is critical during this time.
In recognition of your role, and the importance of your contributions to the Company in the months ahead, the Company has awarded you a one-time $[•] special cash award (the “Retention Bonus”), which will be paid in two equal installments.  The first $[•] installment will be paid on the first regularly scheduled payroll date that follows [Insert Date] and the second $[•] installment will be paid on the first regularly scheduled payroll date that follows [Insert Date], in each case subject to your continued employment with the Company through such date and less all applicable taxes and withholdings.
In the event of the termination of your employment by the Company without “Cause” prior to full payment of the Retention Bonus, you will receive accelerated payment of any unpaid installments, which will be made within 30 days following such termination date.  As used herein, “Cause” means (i) your material breach of any written agreement between you and the Company; (ii) your commission of an act of gross negligence, willful misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, theft or embezzlement; (iii) your commission of, or conviction or indictment for, or plea of nolo contendere to, any felony (or state law equivalent) or any crime involving moral turpitude; or (iv) your willful failure or refusal, other than due to disability, to perform your duties to the Company or to follow any lawful directive from your supervisor.
Your receipt of the Retention Bonus does not affect your employment status with the Company.  You are and will continue to be an employee at-will of the Company.
Because this retention bonus opportunities such as this are reserved for a small number of people, we ask that you please keep the terms of this letter agreement confidential. Failure to keep this letter and its contents strictly confidential could result in forfeiture of any Retention Bonus and other actions against your employment with the Company.  If you have any questions about this program, please contact [Insert contact and phone number].
We look forward to your continued contributions to the Company.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2431

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville,

Building’’.Florida, as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2431

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville, Florida,

as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building at 400 Bay Street in Jackson5 ville, Florida, is designated as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett

6 Federal Building’’. If a new Federal building is built in

7 Jacksonville, Florida, to replace the building at 400 Bay

8 Street, the new Federal building shall be designated as

9 the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.
2

•HR 2431 EH

1 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in any law, regulation, document,

3 record, map, or other paper of the United States to the

4 Federal building referred to in section 1 is deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 13,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
CASE NO. 12-14-00210-CR

BOBBIE GRUBBS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 APPELLANT §

§

VS. § TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF

 TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW The State of Texas , Appellee, by and through her District Attorney, Kenneth

B. Florence, and files this motion for an extension of 30 days in which to file the Appellee’s Brief. 

In support of this motion, Appellee shows the court the following:

I.

Appellant was convicted in the 273 Judicial District Court of Shelby County, Texas, by a rd

jury, of the offense of Capital Murder. The judge assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, for Life, without the possibility of Parole.

II.

The deadline for filing the Appellee’s Brief was July 3, 2015. That date was the official

observance of Independence Day and all county offices were closed. That date has passed, and this

motion is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a late motion for extension of time.

 III.

Appellee’s request for an extension is based upon the following facts: 

1. Appellee can get the brief filed within the 30 days requested.

2. This motion is not opposed by defense counsel.

ACCEPTED

12-14-00210-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/9/2015 3:06:48 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/9/2015 3:06:48 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
3. This motion is the State’s first motion for an extension.

4. The elected District Attorney was the only attorney in the office for 4 years, and a new Assistant

District Attorney was just approved effective June 8, 2015.

 Wherefore, Appellee prays the court grant the motion for leave to late file this motion for

extension, this motion for extension, and extend the deadline for filing the Appellee’s Brief to 

August 7, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Kenneth B. Florence 

KENNETH B. FLORENCE

TBA # 00790698

Shelby County Assistant District Attorney

200 San Augustine Street Suite 12

Center, Texas 75935

(936) 598-2489

(936) 598-4106

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the State’s Motion for Extension of Time to

File Appellee’s Brief, as related above, was served upon, Stephen Shires, Attorney for Appellant,

123 San Augustine Street, Center, Texas 75935, by facsimile (936) 598-3031, on this the 7 day of th

July 2015. 

 /s/ Kenneth B. Florence 

KENNETH B. FLORENCE 
AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS §

§

COUNTY OF SHELBY §

“My name is KENNETH B. FLORENCE; I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to

make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the following facts:

I have read the foregoing motion for extension of time to file Appellee’s Brief and the facts

contained therein are true and within my personal knowledge.”

Further the affiant sayeth not.

/s/ Kenneth B. Florence

KENNETH B. FLORENCE
Exhibit 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Merritt C. Brown, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report, as amended, on Form 10-QSB of Mega Group, Inc;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c.) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                        |  |  |  |    
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: September 3, 2003 |  |  |  | By:
|                        |  |  |  |
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2222

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to allow foreign trade zones to

be established where a regional commission involving more than one

State will coordinate zone activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1993

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself and Mr. MACHTLEY) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to allow foreign

trade zones to be established where a regional commission involving more than one State will coordinate zone

activities.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the Act of June 18,

5 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade Zones Act

6 (19 U.S.C. 81b)), is amended by adding at the end thereof

7 the following new subsection:
2

•HR 2222 IH

1 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR APPLICATIONS BY RE2 GIONAL COMMISSIONS.—

3 ‘‘(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), additional

4 zones may be authorized in the case of an applica5 tion by a regional commission if the requirements of

6 paragraph (2) are met.

7 ‘‘(2) A regional commission may apply for and

8 be granted the privilege of establishing and main9 taining a foreign-trade zone which is located in 2 or

10 more States, if—

11 ‘‘(A) a plan to operate such zone is ap12 proved by the State legislature of each State

13 within such zone,

14 ‘‘(B) the overall commercial interests of

15 the United States will be served by the estab16 lishment of such zone,

17 ‘‘(C) the economic conditions of the region

18 in which the zone is to be located justify the es19 tablishment of the zone, and

20 ‘‘(D) the zone will be operated in accord21 ance with section 14.’’.

22 (b) DEFINITION.—Section 1 of such Act (19 U.S.C.

23 81a) is amended by redesignating subsection (i) as sub24 section (j) and inserting after subsection (h) the following

25 new subsection:
3

•HR 2222 IH

1 ‘‘(i) The term ‘regional commission’ means a commis2 sion authorized by the legislature of 2 or more States to

3 engage in regional planning efforts for the purpose of es4 tablishing and coordinating the activities of 1 or more for5 eign trade zones in such States.’’.

Æ