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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 264

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction

for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals for an indefinite

period, and to increase the amount of such deduction.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. MCCANDLESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore

the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed

individuals for an indefinite period, and to increase the

amount of such deduction.

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

3 SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EM4 PLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 162(l)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

7 rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individ-
2

•HR 264 IH

1 uals) is amended by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘the applicable percentage’’.

3 (b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—Paragraph (6) of

4 section 162(l) of such Code is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(6) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes

6 of paragraph (1)—

‘‘In the case of taxable

years beginning in The applicable

calendar year: percentage is:

1993 ........................................................... 25 percent

1994 or 1995 ............................................. 50 percent

1996 or thereafter ..................................... 100 percent.’’

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

9 December 31, 1992.

Æ
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 95N-0220]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION: 

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Substances Approved for Use in the Preparation of Meat and Poultry Products” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 25, 2000 (65 FR 51758), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under  44 U.S.C. 3507.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0461.  The approval expires on February 29, 2004.   A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at  http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets.                

Dated:  February 22, 2001. 

William K. Hubbard,

Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.

[FR Doc. 01-4965 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David ROSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2408-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 11, 2007.

Timothy W. Hoover, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellant.

Joel L. Violanti, Assistant United States Attorney (Terrance P. Flynn, United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant David Rosa appeals from the 10-month sentence of incarceration imposed on him following his third violation of supervised release. The Government concedes that remand is necessary because the District Court made statements inconsistent with the “parsimony clause” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — that is, the statutory mandate to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). We do not reach the question of whether a 10-month sentence for appellant’s violation is substantively reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, the District Court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 3(iii)


                Amendment to By-Laws of Chateau Community, Inc


Article I, Section 8 of the By-Laws of Chateau Communities, Inc. is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Section 8.  PROXIES.  An authorized stockholder may vote the stock owned of
            -------
record by him, either in person or by proxy authorized by the stockholder or by
his duly authorized attorney in fact.  A stockholder may authorize another
person to act as proxy by transmitting, or authorizing the transmission of, an
authorization of the person to act as proxy to (i) the person authorized to act
as proxy; or (ii) any other person authorized to receive the proxy authorization
on behalf of the person authorized to act as the proxy, including a proxy
solicitation firm or proxy support service organization.  The authorization may
be transmitted by a telegram, cablegram, datagram, electronic mail, or any other
electronic or telephonic means.  Any such proxy shall be filed with the
Secretary of the Corporation before or at the time of the meeting.  No proxy
shall be valid after eleven months from the date of its execution, unless
otherwise provided in the proxy.  A proxy is revocable by a stockholder at any
time without condition or qualification unless the proxy states that it is
irrevocable and the proxy is coupled with an interest.  A proxy may be
irrevocable for so long as it is coupled with an interest.  The interest with
which a proxy may be coupled includes an interest in the stock to be voted under
the proxy or another general interest in the Corporation or its assets or
liabilities.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-34-003]


Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

February 28, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 14, 2001, Dauphin Island Gathering 
Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheet listed below to become 
effective January 1, 2001. DIGP states that the reason for this filing 
is to correct a typographical error in four of the negotiated rates.

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9

    DIGP states that a copies of this filing are being served on its 
customers and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. 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 in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests 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. 01-5342 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                 <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Sep-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      Oct-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        Dec-31-1996                     
<CASH>                               19,525                                     
<SECURITIES>                              0         
<RECEIVABLES>                       494,244      
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                           3,234      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    520,877      
<PP&E>                              159,285           
<DEPRECIATION>                       59,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      684,888     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               315,393
<BONDS>                             105,445            
<COMMON>                            251,640       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0   
<OTHER-SE>                                0  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        664,888
<SALES>                             195,339           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    195,339
<CGS>                                     0     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       123,359   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (83,970)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (11,990)         
<INCOME-TAX>                          4,000             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0   
<CHANGES>                                 0        
<NET-INCOME>                         (7,590)          
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.002)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.002)        
        

</TABLE>
#### Aura Marina JIMINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75534.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*562Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Victor M. Lawrence, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Aura Marina Jiminez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Anita v. INS,*80 F.3d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1996), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the harm Jiminez experienced during her encounter with unknown assailants did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Jiminez failed to establish that the harm her son experienced occurred on account of a protected ground. *See Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Jiminez’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. *See Belayneh v. INS,*213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000).

Because Jiminez failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that she failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2849

To provide for a program to be conducted by the Secretary of Defense

relating to Lyme disease.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1993

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To provide for a program to be conducted by the Secretary

of Defense relating to Lyme disease.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LYME DISEASE

4 PROGRAM.

5 (a) PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense shall carry

6 out a program relating to Lyme disease. The program

7 shall be carried out through the Environmental Hygiene

8 Agency of the Department of the Army. The Secretary

9 shall provide that information relating to prevention, de10 tection, or treatment of Lyme disease that is developed
2

• HR 2849 IH

1 under the program and that may be applicable to the gen2 eral public shall be disseminated to appropriate public

3 health authorities.

4 (b) FUNDING.—From funds available to the Army for

5 fiscal year 1994 for research, development, test, and eval6 uation, the sum of $1,000,000 shall be available for the

7 program under subsection (a), of which $500,000 shall be

8 for one-time startup costs for equipment, facilities, and

9 software development and $500,000 shall be for fiscal year

10 1994 labor and operating expenses.

Æ
[No. 25002-4-III.

Division Three.

September 13, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. B.N.Z., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 05-8-00472-8, Kenneth L. Jorgensen, J., entered March 24, 2006. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Brown and Kulik, JJ.
Opinion issued February 8, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00074-CV

———————————

IN RE DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, L.L.M., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Diogu Kalu Diogu II, L.L.M. filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s November 8, 2023 order denying relator’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.1 Relator subsequently filed an amended petition 

adding a new ground for relief. Relator added a ground challenging the trial 

court’s November 8, 2023 order denying relator’s special exceptions. Although 

1 The underlying case is Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Diogu Kalu Diogu, 

II, cause number 21-DCV-279744, pending in the 458th District Court of Fort 

Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Norma Gonzalez presiding.
2

the Court denied relator’s motion to stay trial on January 29, 2024, relator filed 

another motion to stay on January 30, 2024 with its amended petition for writ of 

mandamus.

We deny the amended petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. The motion to 

stay trial filed on January 30, 2024 is denied. Any pending motions are dismissed 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.
Document

Exhibit 10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2020)


        This Amendment to The Coca-Cola Company Severance Pay Plan is hereby adopted by The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”), effective as of May 29, 2020.
1.The definition of Participant shall be amended to read as follows:
Participant means:
(a)a regular full-time or regular part-time (working at least 30 hours per week) employee of the Company or a Participating Affiliate who works primarily within the United States (one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia) and who is actively at work or on an Approved Leave of Absence, or
(b)a regular, full-time salaried Global Mobility Assignee who is actively at work or on an Approved Leave of Absence.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term “Participant” shall not include any employee of The Coca-Cola Company or an Affiliate who is performing services for Costa USA LLC and who ultimately reports up to the CEO, Costa in accordance with the personnel and organizational systems of the Company.  Furthermore, the term "Participant" shall not include any employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement between an employee representative and the Company or any Affiliate, unless the collective bargaining agreement provides for the employee’s participation in this Plan.  
An individual shall be treated as an "employee" for purposes of this Plan for any period only if (i) he is actually classified during such period by the Company (or to the extent applicable, any Affiliate) on its payroll, personnel and benefits system as an employee, and (ii) he is paid for services rendered during such period through the payroll system, as distinguished from the accounts payable department, of the Company or the Affiliate.  No other individual shall be treated as an employee under this Plan for any period, regardless of his or her status during such period as an employee under common law or under any statute.  In addition, an individual shall be treated as an exempt or nonexempt employee for purposes of this Plan only if he is actually classified during such period by the Company or an Affiliate on its payroll, personnel and benefits system as an exempt or nonexempt employee.


2.Appendix B is amended to add Grand Prairie Plant (TX) to the Thermal (Hot-fill/Juice/Water) Plants list.


















3.Appendix B is further amended to add the following:


Other facilities
Odwalla Chilled Distribution Centers


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to be adopted and signed by its duly authorized member on May 29, 2020.


            THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
            BENEFITS COMMITTEE




            BY:   /s/ Silvina Kippke    
             Silvina Kippke
#### Holmes *v.*The State.

Submitted July 15,

Decided July 23, 1901.

Conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Before Judge Felton. .Bibb superior court. June 20, 1901.

*John B.*Cooper, for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson, solicitor-general,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

The charges excepted to embraced familiar and well-settled rules of law, all of which were, in view of the testimony adduced at the trial, appropriate and applicable. No error of law was committed, and the evidence, while warranting the verdict of involuntary manslaughter which the jury returned, was sufficient to sustain a conviction of a higher offense. It follows that the overruling of the motion for a new trial affords the plaintiff in error no just cause of complaint.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                          13,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,607
<INVENTORY>                                     83,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,787
<PP&E>                                         161,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,091
<BONDS>                                        135,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,258
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,609
<SALES>                                        303,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               303,523
<CGS>                                          249,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,591
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-10-0000053 

16-NOV-2010 

12:18 PM 

NO. SCWC-10-0000053

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

 

In the Matter of the Good Faith Settlement

Between LEVINA N. HOOHULI, individually and as the

Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF KARINA NOELANI HOOHULI,

and JOSIAH L. HOOHULI, JR., Petitioners-Appellees,

and

TESSIE KOTRYS, Respondent-Appellee,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondent-Intervenor/Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30532)

(S.P. No. 09-1-0429)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., for the court1)

Petitioner/Intervenor-Appellant City and County of

Honolulu’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on

October 4, 2010, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 16, 2010. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Chief Justice

1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Perkins, assigned by reason of vacancy.