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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 14 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2019

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
      for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA I.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on June 9, 2019, for an event to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha I.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate April 11, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
EPA Registration Number 

241-256 

Volume 2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
### §353a. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–468, title VI, §615(a)(1), Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2577

Section, act Mar. 12, 1914, ch. 37, §1, as added Mar. 29, 1940, ch. 74, 54 Stat. 80; Dec. 2, 1980, Pub. L. 96–487, title II, §202(3)(a), 94 Stat. 2382, authorized appropriation of not to exceed $30,000 for construction and operation of facilities for visitors and residents to Denali National Park in Alaska.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on date of transfer of Alaska Railroad to the State [Jan. 5, 1985], pursuant to section 1203 of Title 45, Railroads, see section 615(a) of Pub. L. 97–468.
§ 36.208 Direct threat. ( a ) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
( b ) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.
[Order No. 1513-91, 56 FR 35592, July 26, 1991, as amended by AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56251, Sept. 15, 2010]
#### Lynn L. Liebert, Appellant, v TIAA-CREF et al., Respondents.

[826 NYS2d 339]

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory relief relating to the *757parties’ rights under a certain pension benefit plan, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered July 6, 2005, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 16, 2005, inter alia, granting the defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), dismissed the action.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) because there is a divorce action and a probate proceeding pending in a court of the state of Nevada in which the plaintiffs asserted interests may be litigated. CPLR 3211 (a) (4) vests a court with broad discretion in considering whether to dismiss an action on the ground that another action is pending between the same or similar parties seeking the same or substantially the same relief *(see Whitney v Whitney,*57 NY2d 731 [1982]; *White Light Prods. v On The Scene Prods.,*231 AD2d 90, 93 [1997]). Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s commencement of the instant action violates the public policy against “forum shopping and the bifurcation of divorce and equitable distribution proceedings” *(O’Connell v Corcoran,*1 NY3d 179, 185 [2003]; *see St. John v St. John,*201 AD2d 552, 553 [1994]). The plaintiff may not avoid litigating the issues raised in the Nevada divorce action and probate proceeding by commencing a separate action seeking primarily declaratory relief in New York *(see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum,*59 NY2d 143, 148 [1983], *cert denied*464 US 993 [1983]; *DiGeronimo v Amrod,*248 AD2d 652, 653 [1998]; *Salomon Bros. v West Virginia State Bd. of Invs.,*168 AD2d 384 [1990]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 15 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 15

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas first responders include professional and volunteer fire, police, 
        emergency medical technician, and paramedic workers in the United 
        States;
Whereas, according to a 2017 compilation of data on the Emergency Services 
        Sector in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security, 
        ``The first responder community comprises an estimated 4.6 million 
        career and volunteer professionals within five primary disciplines: Law 
        Enforcement, Fire and Rescue Services, Emergency Medical Services, 
        Emergency Management, and Public Works.'';
Whereas first responders deserve to be recognized for their commitment to 
        safety, defense, and honor; and
Whereas October 28, 2019, would be an appropriate day to establish as ``Honoring 
        the Nation's First Responders Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) supports the designation of October 28, 2019, as 
        ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day'';
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of first 
        responders; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities that promote awareness of the 
        contributions of first responders in the United States.

            Passed the Senate June 5, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 15

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Expressing support for the designation of October 28, 2019, as 
            ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day''.
```
#### § 420.21 Policy.

The provisions of this part 420 implement Commission Resolution No. 71-4 (Comprehensive Plan) relating to water supply charges.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 832 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 110
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 832

                          [Report No. 116-45]

To nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America 
  and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
                    concluded on November 15, 1865.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2019

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                             June 10, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Hoeven, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America 
  and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
                    concluded on November 15, 1865.

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

SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF TREATY.

    The Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and 
the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
concluded on November 15, 1865, and entered into pursuant to the Senate 
resolution of ratification dated March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 751), shall 
have no force or effect.
                                                       Calendar No. 110

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 832

                          [Report No. 116-45]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America 
  and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
                    concluded on November 15, 1865.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 10, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 10.6

                              THIRD AMENDMENT
                                  TO THE
                        HANNAFORD CASH BALANCE PLAN

     The  Hannaford  Cash Balance  Plan was last amended and restated  effective
generally January 1, 1998. The Plan was thereafter  amended on two occasions and
is hereby amended in the following respects:

     1. The terms used in this  Amendment  shall have the  meanings set forth in
the Plan unless the context indicates otherwise.

     2. Section 1.43 is amended by adding a new  paragraph at the end thereof to
read as follows:

          "In the case of an Employee whose employment with an Employer is
     terminated by reason of the sale of a store in the Southeast Division,
     in connection with the merger of Hannaford Bros. Co. and Delhaize
     America, Inc., the term 'Year of Vesting Service' shall mean for the
     2000 Plan Year that such Employee is credited with at least the
     applicable number of Hours of Service.  For purposes of the preceding
     sentence, the applicable number for an hourly Employee shall be the
     product of 870 and a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of
     days in the Plan Year as of the effective date of the merger (or
     closing date of the sale of the store, if earlier) and the denominator
     of which is 365; and the applicable number for a salaried or salaried
     nonexempt Employee shall be the product of 1000 and such fraction."

     3.   Section 8.2 is amended to read as follows:

         "8.2     VESTED BENEFIT.  If a Terminated Participant, a
     Terminated Warehouse Participant, or a Terminated Driver Participant
     is credited with at least five (5) Years of Vesting Service at his or
     her Termination of Employment Date, he or she shall be entitled to
     receive a Vested Benefit determined as of his or her Termination of
     Employment Date in accordance with Section 4.1 or 4.2.
     Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section to the
     contrary, each Participant who is an Employee of Hannaford HomeRuns on
     the closing date of the sale of Hannaford HomeRuns shall be entitled
     to receive a Vested Benefit determined as of his or her Termination of
     Employment Date in accordance with Section 4.1 or 4.2."

     4. Part 2 of this Amendment  shall be effective as of the effective date of
the merger of Hannaford  Bros.  Co. and Delhaize  America,  Inc.  Part 3 of this
Amendment  shall be  effective  as of the closing  date of the sale of Hannaford
HomeRuns.
# THE ATFORNEY GENERAL OF-TEXAS

The Honorable Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Public Accounts State Finance Building Austin, Texas 78711

Dear Mr. Calvert: Opinion No. H- 65 Re: Whether certain notes

ofthe Harlingen National Bank, which have adefinite maturity date and afixed interest rate, should be considered a part ofthe bank’s capital and as such, be subject to an ad valorem tax levy? Your **request** for our opinion states that on October 10, 1972, the Harlingen National Bank issued 7and 172‘%Subordinated Capital Notes to mature on October 10, 1982, with interest payable semi-annually. Your letter states that the U.S. Comptroller ofthe Currency considers the issue to be part ofthe capital structure ofthe bank. You ask **our** opinion as to whether these notes should be considered a part of the bank’s capital and as such to be subject to an ad vdorem levy. Articles 7165 and 7166 govern the taxation ofbanks and the shares of stockho1der.s. Neither calls for the bank to render its capital for taxation. However, shareholders of banks are required to render, at actual value, all shares of stock in the bank owned by them. “Each share in such bank shall be taxed only for the difference between its actual cash value and the proportionate amount per share inwhich its real estate is assessed. ” (Article 7166) InRosenburg v. Weekes, 4S.W. 899 (1887), the Texas Supreme **Court** stated: “The value of abank share depends upon the value ofits franchise, capital, and property of all kinds less the amount of its debts. ”

p. 280The Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2(H-65)
Despite its name, a subordinated capital note of abank clearly is not apart ofits capital. Itis evidence of an indebtedness. The designation as capital notes, in all probability, arose from a long-standing tendency in the financial community to refer to concentrations of money as capital whether owned or not. Debt generally is recognized to be a less expensive method offunding abank or business than is capital or equity. Capital notes are evidence ofa debt, and not of capital itself. Inarriving at adetermination ofthe fair cash market value of a bank’s shares for the purpose of rendition by the shareholders, the note described should be treated as anindebtedness and not as part of capital. SUMMARY Subordinated Capital Notes of banks issued for a loan to the bank are notto be considered as part of the bank’s capital for the purpose of determining the value ofits shares. Instead they should betreated as an indebtedness ofthe bank. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROkED: 

# _~ &z
_

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 281
### §3192a. Restrictions on use of appropriated funds

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act hereafter enacted may be used by the Secretary of the Interior, except with respect to land exchange costs and costs associated with the preparation of land acquisitions, in the acquisition of State, private, or other non-federal lands (or any interest therein) in the State of Alaska, unless, in the acquisition of any State, private, or other non-federal lands (or interest therein) in the State of Alaska, the Secretary seeks to exchange unreserved public lands before purchasing all or any portion of such lands (or interest therein) in the State of Alaska.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(e) [title I, §127], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–231, 2681–261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, and not as part of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which comprises this chapter.
### §272e. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–155, §6, Nov. 12, 1971, 85 Stat. 423, authorized the Secretary to conduct a study of proposed road alinements within and adjacent to the park and to submit a report on the findings and conclusions of the study to the Congress within two years of Nov. 12, 1971.
### §271d. Administration, protection, and development

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, the administration, protection, and development of the Canyonlands National Park, as established pursuant to this subchapter, shall be exercised by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 and the following),1 as amended and supplemented.

(Pub. L. 88–590, §5, Sept. 12, 1964, 78 Stat. 939.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 and the following), referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

1 See References in Text note below.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  Contract Limit & SOP 50 45 Financial Statement Quality Adjustments For Inflation In SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program 

# Contract Limit & SOP 50 45 Financial Statement Quality Adjustments for Inflation in SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program

## About this document and download

This notification updates financial statement quality requirements for SBA's surety bond guarantee in SOP 50 45.

  Download  .pdf

**Effective**

**OMB Control Number**

**Related Programs**    Related programs:
Exhibit 10.26


 





 


 


 


[xxxx]


 


Vénissieux, January
[●] 2016


 


Objet : Stock options


 


Dear [xxxx],


 


We are pleased to inform you that, you
were granted [xxxx] stock options in the Company at the Board meeting of Flamel Technologies held on December 10, 2015, according
to authorizations provided by the shareholders Meetings on June 24, 2014 and according to the rules governing the Stock Options
plan of December 2015 (the “Rules 2015”), as attached.


 


Subject to condition of continued employment
provided in Section 2.5 of the Rules 2015, these stock options will only be converted into shares according to the following detailed
rules:


 


		-	[xxxx]
                                         (25%) exercisable options from 12/10/2016 to 12/10/2025 inclusive



		-	[xxxx]
                                         (25%) exercisable options from 12/10/2017 to 12/10/2025 inclusive



		-	[xxxx]
                                         (25%) exercisable options from 12/10/2018 to 12/10/2025 inclusive



		-	[xxxx]
                                         (25%) exercisable options from 12/10/2019 to 12/10/2025 inclusive



 


The exercise price of the options granted
is USD 14.35.


 


These stocks options are not negotiable.
We invite you to refer to the Rules 2015 for more detail with regard to the rules applicable to your options.


 


We thank you in advance to duly sign and
write “Lu et approuvé”, on the present letter and attached document Rules 2015” and return
them to our HR Department (Evelyne Beauzon).


 


 


Yours sincerely,


 





	The
    BENEFICIARY:	FLAMEL
    TECHNOLOGIES
	[xxxx]	Michael S. Anderson







 





 


Attachement: Rules governing
the Stock Option plan of December 2015
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       AIRPORT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                           NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       YEAR ENDED
                               ----------------------------------------------------------
                                       APRIL 30, 1999              APRIL 30, 1998
                               -----------------------------  ---------------------------
                               NET LOSS    SHARES      EPS    NET INCOME  SHARES    EPS

<S>                            <C>         <C>        <C>     <C>         <C>       <C>
Basic earnings per share .     $(3,553)     2,230     $(1.59)    $980     2,230     $0.44

Effect of stock option ...          --         --        --        --       191     $0.04
                               -------      -----     -----      ----     -----     -----
Diluted earnings per share     $(3,553)     2,230     $(1.59)    $980     2,421     $0.40
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]


Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6312 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of certain 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico for the November 1, 
2008, through October 31, 2009, period of review. See Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 78216 (December 15, 
2010). The final results for this administrative review are currently 
due no later than April 14, 2011.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to complete the final results of an 
administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the 
preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to 
complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act allows the Department to extend the 120 day time period for the 
final results to 180 days.
    The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete 
this review within the statutory time limit because of significant 
issues that require additional time to evaluate. These issues include 
complicated questions involving various cost accounting issues, use of 
multiple unaffiliated suppliers' costs, and proper application of facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for 
completion of the final results of this administrative review until no 
later than June 13, 2011, which is 180 days after the date on which the 
preliminary results of review were published.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-6246 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P