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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1882

To provide a 4 percent pay increase for Federal employees within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated Metropolitan

Statistical Area.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1993

Mr. BORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To provide a 4 percent pay increase for Federal employees

within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DEMD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAY INCREASE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective as of the first applicable

5 pay period beginning on or after the date of the enactment

6 of this Act, the President shall be considered to have

7 granted a 4 percent pay increase under section 302 of the

8 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (5

9 U.S.C. 5304 note) to General Schedule employees (includ-
2

•HR 1882 IH

1 ing employees covered by chapter 54 of title 5, United

2 States Code) within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton,

3 PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical

4 Area.

5 (b) RULES UNDER SECTION 302 APPLY.—All provi6 sions of such section 302 relating to the administration,

7 reduction, or termination of a pay adjustment shall apply,

8 and any authority relating to the extension of a pay ad9 justment to employees under special pay rates or other

10 pay systems shall be available, to the same extent as if

11 the increase under subsection (a) had been granted under

12 subsection (b) of such section.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906

I, Russel H. McMeekin, Chief Executive Officer of Progressive Gaming International Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: March 23, 2007



By:

/S/    RUSSEL H. MCMEEKINRussel H. McMeekin Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1709
MORRISON MULLINS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-167-BLA) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morrison Mullins, Petitioner Pro Se. Cathryn Celeste Helm, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Mullins v. Director of Workers' Compensation Programs , No. 93-167-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVERSELLERS 

AtTORNeY GENERAL 

Ilonereble Oibb 011 cbrlst, Preeident 

Agrluulturel end Yl&8al881 c0110go Of Tee** 

COY10~0 8t8Uw, fwe 

Deer Yr. Ollabrletl 

tbe t e yenn& w under 

en la Oatebbr, 1949, 

be bee sew esked to be regletond la the A. 

eident 8tudoBt ef rcU88. Toa the@ l ak tbie 

*Ie l l tudoat rbo is uador twW ty-oao toerr of 

8ge em 8boee tuil~ does not rselde in fuee, rbe 

wee edoptoa b,t 8 eitleea or Tarre lee. than tw1ro 

wntbe prior to the d8ti be r8@irtored tar tbr firet 

tire l e e l tudent 8t tbie iaetitutlen~ aaaeidered 8 

legs1 POeidOBt Of ~0888 und8r the 8t8tUtO +ixin& tbo ( 

tultlom ret08 teer l tad6nt8 of lnetltutlome 0C 001X9- 

glete rank eupported lo who10 or la prt b;I l ppraprleUOa 8t pablia funds t?‘Om th. Skk ?FO8SUl7t 
776 

Xowmble Oibb Oll8hriet - p8ge 8 

Artisle 468 Of Verwn'o Awetetod Rev1004 8tetmte8 

18 the Moptlos ler at Ture~ WOtlom @ ot uld Artiele rO8d8 

la p8rt 88 follore~ 

l no8 8 eblla &e 8dsptod ia 8croord8roo ritb 

tka pMTldW* 84 tble bPtloI0~ all leg1 trlationeblp 8md 821 rights 8nd Qtiee bakeon rob oblld 

-*ml its acltaml promtm JFll l tieo l d det*rdne, 

preridod, bewmr, tbnt wtbj.ng berdr dmll prbr a t ewb l trrpted ablll ?tom l~tl~~ ?ram Its 

astus-02 perat) a11 MOpte4 slrlSbr erl8ll iDher%t 

from tbo SdOpk( 88 We22 88 1Cs Utnr8l parwto. 

Seia Obi’ld ehell tborraitw lm rlaemd UB& bbl4 W 

bo, ter every purpmsr tha ehlld ef ita pweat or 

persntm w l depthn 88 fu217 8e t&ou& term ot 

Cha in 1,8ww w04lOeh 8n11 e&121. l k 22 b e a - 

titt6a to preper Maslrtloa~ nppert, mlntesum40r 

ma tur e l md eere fra wid perat e? presto b7 

adaption, 8aU l fk ell ia bor if?b 6a Uia p eto a 8t 1 

peronte br ed@sptb?a, end 88 tbb oblld oi rid p8rant or gareate by l loptieu, es tall7 es thimgb 

b0i-a t.6 tbr lm 18Wf%1 ~ea xec lk ~ l l 0.m 

Atticto 28Md oi Torlko~'e Awdekd Rovteod &etutee 

fleer tbe tuitiaa thet wa7 bo elmr@d far roelde*t l tadonte end 

for nom-tueideBt StUdwtSr SBd httioe 8-t 18 HUt b7 8 WDr setdent ltudrnt es fellorst 

0s. l + 0. A aen-nel4ont l tudont se hart 

b7 aatfwd to bs a warn br loos tbur ttont7- 

o w ( P I) yews o f l ger living awe7 from ble fsw 

il7 l @d wboee C8ailr r r ddee ia l netb8r ttet6, 

or wboeo fully h8e Melded titbln tbls 8-W 

?or l period OS time fees tbrs tretre (18) 

wmtbe pAor to tb6 1ek of ro~etT8t~on, Or 8 

student of Wentpew (31) ye8re of ego or eTer 

wba roddoe ewt of tb btbfo or wbe b8a red&d 

wIthIm tbo Stete tom 8 p6rSed ot lees thu, twdm 

(12) memtbe prior te Uu 48k ef ro~etmtlem~" 

Vbw ~0 eOnetrta0 tB0 Moptlos statute sad eeib Artisle 

2654s together, i$ Se, w tblmk, 8pparent tht the fenily Of 8U 

8depted *hiId 18 hi8 8dOptiDg pWODt0. This klmg tru*, It tol10~s tbet l lsee tbe 8dOptsa# pv8nte Of th ml-r in quOetioB 
lowrabla Oibb Qil‘ebbriet - p1g8 3 

hste ?or WM #ma tvelro watbe, Ud l r# a6W llrin~ ln 

Turns, and tbet tbo door for the pet tro fe8re h88 Mom 

lirin~ ia Tu88, bo is 8mtitlod to register end ba noep 

aiaed 80 8 Mddwt otudont Of tu88. 

for7 trml7 Jews 

momn Q- w tam
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-106882, 33-74556,
33-87758, 33-87760, 333-45917, 333-58688 and 333-58690) of GreenPoint Financial Corp. of our report dated January 21, 2004, except
for Note 23 for which the date is February 16, 2004, relating to the financial statements which appears in the Current Report on Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 10, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF VESTA INSURANCE GROUP, INC.



J. Gordon Gaines, Inc. (Delaware)



| |  |  | Florida Select Insurance Agency, Inc. (Florida)
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Select Insurance Services, Inc. (Texas) d/b/a Texas Select Lloyds, Inc.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation (Illinois)



| |  |  | Florida Select Insurance Holdings, Inc. (Florida)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Florida Select Insurance Company (Florida)
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Shelby Casualty Insurance Company (Illinois)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The Shelby Insurance Company (Illinois)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------



| |  |  | Texas Select Lloyds Insurance Company (Texas)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Company, Ltd. (Hawaii)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Vesta Insurance Corporation (Illinois)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------



Vesta Timber Co., LLC (Alabama)
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36967

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

LARRY GENE FRANKS ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opin ion No. 484

Filed: May 26, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Stat e of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling , District Judge.

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified twelve

year sentence, with five

- year d eterminate term, for sexual abuse of a minor child

, affirmed

.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. L awrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Larry Gene Franks pled guilty to sexual abuse of a minor child , I.C. § 18

- 1506(1)(b) , and
the district court imposed a unified twelve

- year sentence with a five

- year determinate term. The
district court suspended the sente nce and placed Franks on probation. This probation was
subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into execution. On appeal, Franks
does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation, but argues only that this
sentence is excessive and that the district court should have sua sponte reduced Jones’s sentence.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reaso nableness of the sentence are well established and2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Tooh ill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007).

When we review a sentence that is ordered i nto execution following a period of
probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original
judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our
review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring
between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying these standards,

and ha ving reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its

discretion.
Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Franks ’s previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,780
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
#### David L. BRADLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden McKither BODISON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7536.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 29, 2010.

David L. Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David L. Bradley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). *721When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bradley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

July 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-31148 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

JOHN B. LEVY,

DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 85-298-M

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John B. Levy appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis.

He contends that his conviction violated Cleveland v. United States

, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), because the

Government’s theory of the case was that he committed fraud in seeking and obtaining a license to-2-

operate an insurance company. Levy also contends that his disbarment is a continuing consequence

of his conviction and that his coram nobis petition should not be barred by the doctrine of laches.

Levy’s superseding indictment alleged that he participated in a series of false representations

and fraudulent transactions to gain regulatory approval to purchase an insurance company, then to

pilfer that company’s assets in violation of an order of the Insurance Commission. The superseding

indictment alleged that the Insurance Commission and the citizens of Louisiana were defrauded by

Levy. However, the fraud alleged in the indictment included actual financial gain to Levy through

fraudulent transactions, some of which were designed to evade regulatory scrutiny. Levy does not

dispute that fraudulent acqui sit io n o f a company’s assets is within the scope of the federal fraud

statutes. He has not demonstrated that his conviction violated C leveland and therefore has not shown

that the district court erred by denying petition for coram nobis relief. S ee United States v. Esogbue

,

357 F.3d 532, 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0343

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

LILA LYNN LORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 27, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0343
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          57,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              155
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,015
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,936
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,936
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT NO. 2  TO THE  AMENDED AND RESTATED  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS, INC.

Adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

Ultimate Electronics, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:The Board of Directors of the Company has adopted the following resolution proposing and declaring advisable an
amendment (the "Amendment") to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company:



SECOND:The Amendment was duly adopted by the Company's stockholders at an annual meeting duly called and held on
June 21, 2001 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

THIRD:This Certificate of Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company has
been executed and shall be filed and recorded in accordance with Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this Certificate to be signed by Alan E. Kessock, its Chief Financial Officer, this 21st day of June, 2001.

| |  | ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation  
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                 
| |  | Name: Alan E. Kessock
Title: Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

# DATE AND TIME:

Friday, January 11, 2002, 8:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

Hilton Washington, 1919 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Monroe Room, Washington, DC 20425.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

### Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Approval of Minutes of December 7, 2001 Meeting

III. Announcements

IV. Staff Director's Report

V. State Advisory Committee Appointments of District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia

VI. Future Agenda Items

9:30 a.m. Document Production Hearing for the Education Accountability Project.

10:00 a.m. Environmental Justice Hearing.

Debra Carr,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01-32258  Filed 12-28-01; 4:56 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-00-M