alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2677 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2677

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2677

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.

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

SECTION 1. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF WEST COURT OF NATIONAL 
              MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BUILDING.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
Natural History building.

SEC. 2. FUNDING.

    No appropriated funds may be used to pay any expense of the 
planning, design, and construction authorized by section 1.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20


                   2003 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR DALE SZYMBORSKI



Name:  DALE SZYMBORSKI

Function:  PRESIDENT
           KONTRON MOBILE COMPUTING, MINNEAPOLIS


The main focus this year is to grow the company and continue the successful path
of profitability. The main challenge will be to motivate your staff/people
during the year and report weekly to the CEO. This reward system intends to
motivate you to fulfill both the Company tasks and, in the long term, create
shareholder value for all shareholders of KMC.

Base Salary:  $120,000

The bonus per Quarter is evaluated and based on the following:

1.     Profitability for Kontron Mobile Computing per Quarter

       o    If Operating profit is less than $150K, then $0/Qtr.

       o    If Operating profit is less than $399K, then $7,500/Qtr.

       o    If Operating profit is more than $400K, $10,000/Qtr.

       o    If Operating profit is more than $500K, then $15,000/Qtr.

       o    If Operating profit is more than $900K, then $20,000/Qtr.

       o    If Operating profit is more than $1,300,000, then $30,000/Qtr.

Before the Bonus is paid, the numbers in each quarter have to be audited and
approved by the CEO.

No Q3 or Q4 Bonus will be paid if the 2003 YTD cumulative Operating Profit at
the end of these quarters is less than $800K.

If Revenue for the year 2003 exceeds $15 Million, there is an additional bonus
of $15,000 paid out.

The CEO has the right at any time to change the above conditions.




/s/ Thomas Sparrvik                 /s/ Dale Szymborski
--------------------------------    --------------------------------------------
Thomas Sparrvik, CEO                Dale Szymborski, General Manager & President
Kontron Mobile Computing,  Inc.     Kontron Mobile Computing, Inc.



/s/ Richard L. Poss                 /s/ David C. Malmberg
--------------------------------    --------------------------------------------
Richard L. Poss                     David C. Malmberg
Chairman, Compensation Committee    Chairman of the Board
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

L.S., 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

J.R., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 613 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
#### Anna M. BUENROSTRO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 08-56620.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 7, 2011.

Anna M. Buenrostro, Bellflower, CA, pro se.

Katherine M. Hikida, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anna M. Buenrostro appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of her employer in her action alleging discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, *Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003), *73and for abuse of discretion its denial of a request to reopen discovery, *Panatronic USA v. AT&T Corp.,*287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claim because Buenrostro failed to show that she was treated less favorably than similarly-situated employees outside her protected class or that her employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, such as denying her a promotion, were pretextual. *See Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2003). Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the harassment claim because Buenrostro failed to show that she was subjected to conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 642-44.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro’s second request for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) because she failed to show that she diligently pursued her previous discovery opportunities and how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Panatronic USA*287 F.3d at 846.

We do not consider Buenrostro’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. *See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Conocophillips Co.,*546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).

Buenrostro’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4437
<SECURITIES>                                   16969
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9378<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    4541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35825
<PP&E>                                         8102<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8722
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       88
<OTHER-SE>                                     36305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50118
<SALES>                                        36504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46350
<CGS>                                          15939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7627<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3561
<INCOME-TAX>                                   239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .35



<FN>
<F1>Net of  allowance  for doubtful  accounts,  consistent  with  balance  sheet
presentation.
<F2>Net of accumulated depreciation, consistent with balance sheet
presentation.
<F3>Research and development expenses
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[No. 58267-4-I.

Division One.

September 17, 2007.]

#### Neal J. Elsemore, *Appellant,*v. Bryce Grenell et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-2-04798-6, Douglas D. McBroom, J., entered May 1 and 19, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Cox and Ellington, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 The National Bank of Indianapolis
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Debra L. Ross, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/   Debra L. Ross
-----------------------------------
Debra L. Ross
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2006


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and not for any other purpose, and is subject to the knowledge
standard contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5126]


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

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes to Close March 1, 2001, Meeting

    By paper vote on February 22 and 23, 2001, the Board of Governors 
of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to 
public observation its meeting scheduled for March 1, 2001, in 
Washington, DC, via teleconference.

Item Considered: 1. Opinion and Further Recommended Decision of the 
Postal Rate Commission in Docket No. R2000-1.

Persons Expected Attend: Governors Ballard, Daniels, del Junco, 
Dyhrkopp, Fineman, Kessler, McWherter, Rider and Walsh; Postmaster 
General Henderson, Deputy Postmaster General Nolan, Secretary to the 
Board Hunter, and General Counsel Gibbons.

General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Contact Person for More Information: Requests for information about the 
meeting should be addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Board, 
William T. Johnstone, at (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5126 Filed 2-27-01; 2:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
2009-1871.

#### [State ex rel.] Furlong v. Horrigan.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 STATEMENT
        REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China International
        Tourism
        Holdings Ltd. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ming
        Lei,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
  *
        the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
        Ming
        Lei
 Ming
        Lei
  Chief
        Executive Officer
 
 
 Date:
        May
        14, 2008
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5125]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the West Virginia Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of 
the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
11:15 a.m. and adjourn at 3:15 p.m. on April 10, 2001, at the 
Governor's Conference Room (Office of the Secretary of State, Room 
157), State Capitol Building, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, 
West Virginia 25305. The Committee will hold a planning meeting to 
discuss the drafting of a report based on three community forums held 
between 1998 and 2000, coordinate information gathered from newly 
elected officials, and plan future projects.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 26, 2001.
Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-5125 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________
No. 12

- 10086

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09

- cr

- 00037

- SPM

- GRJ

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee Cross Appellant,

versus

SAMIM ANGHAIE, SOUSAN ANGHAIE, Defendants

- Appellants Cross Appellees.

________________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

________________________ (June 7, 2013)

Before CARNES, WILSON, and EBEL, * Circuit Judges.

PER CURI AM:

* Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 1 of 32 Having studied the briefs and the relevant parts of the record, and having

heard oral argument in this case, we have concluded that there is no merit to the

Appellants’ arguments that the evidence was insufficient to convict them on the

counts for w hich they were convicted. We have also concluded that there is no

merit to the Appellee’s cross

- appeal arguments that the district court erred in the

amount of the forfeiture it ordered Appellants to pay or in failing to order them to

pay restitution.

We are convinced, however, that the district court should conduct an

evidentiary hearing into the Appellants’ claim regarding th e alleged conversation

between juror Moss and Dr. A bdol Chini about Appellant Samim Anghaie. We

leave to the district court’s d iscretion the procedural question of whether to hear

testimony from Dr. Chini before deciding if it needs to hear testimony from juror

Moss, or to hear testimony from both of them in any event. We imply no view

about how the district court should decide t he issue once it conducts the

evidentiary inquiry, nor do we imply any view about whether Appellant Sousan

Anghaie could be entitled to any relief based on this claim if the alleged

conversation was not about her.

The judgment in this case is VACATED AN D REMANDED for the limited

purpose of an evidentiary hearing into the allegations that juror Moss discussed the

Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 2 of 33 case with Dr. Chini before the trial was complete and for a decision on the issue or

issues involv ed in t hat claim.

Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 3 of 3
#### Mayra Roxana CRUZ-CARBALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72199.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 12, 2011.

Mayra Roxana Cruz-Carballo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland *103Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, OIL, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mayra Roxana Cruz-Carballo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA failed to address Cruz-Carballo’s contention that she is eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c), which implements the provision of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”) authorizing relief for otherwise eligible aliens who are removable due to certain criminal convictions. *See*NA-CARA § 203(b). Although both parties discuss Cruz-Carballo’s eligibility for this relief in their briefing, because “this court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely,” *Navas v. INS,*217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000), we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BIA to address Cruz-Carballo’s eligibility in the first instance. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  928,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                    97,853
<INVENTORY>                                  1,004,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,872,089
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,642,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,919,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       700,296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (977,298)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,642,984
<SALES>                                      3,805,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,805,516
<CGS>                                        3,988,917
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,988,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,652,833<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,962,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,962,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                173,893
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,788,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)
<FN>
<F1>Includes write-down for assets to be liquidated.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: FSIS User Information - FSIS 

To: FSIS - All FSIS Employees 

Date: Tue 4/21/2020 3:02 PM 

Subject: OWCP claims due to COVID-19 

**** Please do not respond to this mailbox. Thank you.   

Federal employees who develop COVID-19 while in the performance of their duties are entitled to 

workers' compensation coverage pursuant to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). Federal 

agencies process workers’ compensation claims through the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). DOL 

recently revised its guidance regarding claims filed related to COVID-19. 

DOL acknowledges that it is difficult to determine the precise moment and method of virus 

transmission. They will accept claims from employees who have tested positive for COVID-19 as 

supported by medical documentation when exposure to the virus likely occurred during the performance 

of their official duties. Objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may be work-related includes, for 

example, a number of cases developing among workers who work closely together without an alternative 

explanation. It may also include information you have shared with your supervisor regarding your health 

and safety. 

DOL has created new procedures to specifically address COVID-19 claims. Employees filing a claim for 

workers' compensation coverage as a result of contracting COVID-19 should file Form CA-1, Notice of 

Traumatic Injury, through FSIS’ Workers’ Compensation Team at AskWorkersComp@usda.gov. Form 

CA-1 can be obtained from DOL at https://www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec/regs/compliance/forms.htm. 

Be advised that DOL will require the claimant to provide a factual statement and any available evidence 

concerning exposure. FSIS will also be expected to provide DOL with any information regarding the 

alleged exposure and indicate whether the Agency supports the claim. If FSIS supports the claim that the 

exposure occurred and if the CA-1 is filed within 30 days, then the employee is eligible to receive 

Continuation of Pay for up to 45 days. 

Employees should work with their supervisors during the claims process as normal. Please email 

AskWorkersComp@usda.gov with questions. 

Lost/stolen laptop, Smartphone or other Personal Data Assistant (PDA) or Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII) Incident? Immediately contact USDA at 1-877-Pii2You or 1-888-926-2373, 24 hours 

a day, and then contact the FSIS Service Desk at 1 (800) 473-9135. 

** *Supervisors should make a copy of this email available to inspection personnel without 

Outlook accounts.***