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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14949-14950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Acquisition University Industry Day: ``Better Buying 
Power'' Initiatives

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition University, DoD.

ACTION: Event notice.

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

SUMMARY: Mrs. Katrina McFarland, President, Defense Acquisition 
University (DAU), will host a forum to discuss implementation of Better 
Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and 
Productivity in Defense Spending, outlined in the Dr.

[[Page 14950]]

Ashton B. Carter, Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology & 
Logistics, 14 September 2010 memorandum to acquisition professionals. 
Name of Event: Defense Acquisition University Industry Day: ``Better 
Buying Power'' Initiatives.

DATES: Thursday, April 21, 2011 from 8 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Defense Acquisition University, Howell Auditorium, Bldg. 
226, 9820 Belvoir Rd., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christen Goulding, Protocol Director, 
DAU; Phone: 703-805-5134; Fax: 703-805-3856; E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Event: The purpose of this event is to discuss and 
dialogue with industry about implementation of the USD(AT&L) memo about 
better buying power.
    Agenda:

8 a.m. Overview of initiatives
9 a.m. Question and answer session
10:30 a.m. Begin individual, 20-minute sessions

    Public's Accessibility to the Event: All attendees must be pre-
registered to attend the event. Persons desiring to attend can register 
online at http://www.dau.mil/documents/conference/index.asp
    Event Point of Contact: Ms. Christen Goulding, 703-805-5134.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-6357 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 6 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2019 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in 

memory of the late President of the United States, 

George Herbert Walker Bush. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A commemorative document in 

5 memory of the late President of the United States, George 

6 Herbert Walker Bush, shall be printed as a House docu7 ment, with illustrations and suitable binding, under the 

8 direction of the Joint Committee on Printing. 

9 (b) CONTENTS.—The document shall consist of the 

10 eulogies and encomiums for George Herbert Walker Bush, 

11 as expressed in the Senate and the House of Representa12 tives, together with the texts of each of the following: 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SCON 6 RFH 

1 (1) The state funeral ceremony at the United 

2 States Capitol Rotunda. 

3 (2) The national funeral service held at the 

4 Washington National Cathedral, Washington, Dis5 trict of Columbia. 

6 (3) The memorial service held at St. Martin’s 

7 Episcopal Church, Houston, Texas. 

8 (4) The interment ceremony at the George Her9 bert Walker Bush Presidential Library Center, Col10 lege Station, Texas. 

11 SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT. 

12 In addition to the usual number of copies printed, 

13 there shall be printed the lesser of— 

14 (1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative docu15 ment, of which 22,150 copies shall be for the use of 

16 the House of Representatives and 10,350 copies 

17 shall be for the use of the Senate; or 

18 (2) such number of copies of the commemora19 tive document that does not exceed a production and 

20 printing cost of $1,000,000, with distribution of the 

21 copies to be allocated in the same proportion as de22 scribed in paragraph (1). 

Passed the Senate February 28, 2019. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1



|                                                                       |  |                                            
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                                     |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION
|TriQuint, Inc. (f/k/a Sawtek, Inc.)                                    |  | Florida                                    
|Sawtek Sweden AB                                                       |  | Sweden                                     
|TFR Technologies, Inc.                                                 |  | Oregon                                     
|TriQuint S.R.L. (f/k/a Sawtek S.R.L)                                   |  | Costa Rica                                 
|TriQuint Semiconductor GmbH                                            |  | Germany                                    
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Asia, Inc. (f/k/a Sawtek Far East, Inc.)                      |  | Delaware                                   
|TriQuint Japan TYK                                                     |  | Japan                                      
|TriQuint (Shanghai) Trading Company, Ltd.                              |  | China                                      
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Colorado, Inc. (f/k/a Peak Devices, Inc.)                     |  | Colorado                                   
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Texas General Holding Company                                 |  | Delaware                                   
|TriQuint Texas Limited Holding Company                                 |  | Delaware                                   
|TriQuint Semiconductor Texas, LP                                       |  | Texas                                      
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Sales and Design, Inc. (f/k/a TriQuint Optoelectronics, Inc.) |  | Delaware                                   
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Technology Holding Co.                                        |  | Delaware                                   
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint International Holding Co.                                     |  | Delaware                                   
|                                                                       | 
|TriQuint Europe Holding Company                                        |  | Delaware
In an SEC administrative proceeding, the party filing a written submission or any other 

document is responsible for serving that document on all other parties. To show compliance 

with this requirement, a certificate of service must be included with each filing. The certificate 

must state the name of the person or persons served, the date of service, the method of service, 

and the mailing address or email address to which service was made, if not made in person. 

17 C.F.R. § 201.151(d). Please use a format similar to these examples and include the 

certificate of service at the end of your main document. Electronic filings may be signed with 

an “/s/” notation. 17 C.F.R. § 201.152(c).

example for email service

Certificate of Service

In accordance with Rules of Practice 150 and 151, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.150 & 

.151, I certify that a copy of [here, write the name of your document] was served 

on the following on [date of service], via email at the email address indicated

below:

[Name of party or counsel to whom you sent your document]

[Their email address]

[Their position, such as: Respondent Pro Se/

Counsel for Respondent/

Counsel for Division of Enforcement]

 signature

[Your name]

[Your position, such as: Respondent Pro Se/

Counsel for Respondent/

Counsel for Division of Enforcement]
If you are unable to serve the other parties electronically, you must file a certification 

explaining your inability to do so with the Office of the Secretary and serve copies of your 

written submissions or documents on the other parties by one of the additional methods of 

service listed in Rule 150(d), 17 C.F.R. § 201.150(d).

example for alternative service

Certificate of Service

In accordance with Rules of Practice 150 and 151, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.150 & 

.151, I certify that a copy of [here, write the name of your document] was served 

on the following on [date of service], via the method of service indicated below:

[Name of party or counsel to whom you sent your document]

[Their full address]

[Their fax number, if applicable: (xxx) xxx-xxxx]

[Their position, such as: Respondent Pro Se/

Counsel for Respondent/

Counsel for Division of Enforcement]

Method of Service:

[personal service/fax transmission/U.S. Postal Service by first class, 

registered, or certified mail or express mail delivery/commercial courier 

service or express delivery service]

 signature

[Your name] 

[Your position, such as: Respondent Pro Se/

Counsel for Respondent/

Counsel for Division of Enforcement]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 42 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 19,933.

#### Cecelia H. Zika *v.*Frank Eckel, Executor of the Estate of Anna Belle Morris, Deceased.

(372 P. [2d] 165)

Decided June 18, 1962.

Messrs. Williams, Stevens & Taussig, Mr. William A. Trine, Mr. Charles E. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Ryan, Sayre, Martin, Brotzman and Hansen, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Frantz.

*303Ought the trial court on its own motion to have required that notice of a trial setting be served on the party personally where it is generally known by both the bench and the bar of the county that the whereabouts of the party’s attorney is frequently, and for extended periods of time, unknown, and that absences from his work are many times the result of his excessive drinking? We believe that the exercise of a wise and sound discretion by the trial court would have impelled it to require such service of notice.

An action had been instituted to set aside a deed on the ground that the grantor had been unduly influenced, overreached and defrauded by the grantee. The attorney in question (not of present counsel) filed an answer on behalf of Miss Zika, putting in issue the charges of the complaint, and alleging at the same time affirmative defenses.

The case was set for trial in the absence of Miss Zika and her counsel, and it appears that a'notice of the setting was sent to the office of the attorney. On the day fixed for trial, neither Miss Zika nor her attorney appeared. Evidence to sustain the complaint was submitted to the trial court. Later, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made by the court, eventuating in a favorable judgment for the estate.

Miss Zika twice sought to have the judgment set aside and vacated, asserting that she knew nothing about the trial setting, and that the first information she had about the setting and trial was obtained at the time she learned that a judgment had been entered against her. She also alleged the long absence of her attorney during all the time these events took place. She contended that the circumstances constituted excusable neglect. Her efforts to have the judgment vacated were unsuccessful, and she brings the case here on writ of error.

Rule 5 (b) (1), R.C.P. Colo., provides that “whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attor*304ney -the service shall be made upon the attorney *unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.”*(Emphasis' supplied.)

The rule is applicable to the situation • which confronted the trial court. It should have ordered service upon Miss Zika. “The court may order service upon a party himself, even though he is represented by an attorney, in cases where the court deems such service necessary.” 1 Moore’s Fed.- Practice (1938) 575. See *Thompson v.*McCormick, 138 Colo. 434, 335 P. (2d) 265.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and to proceed to trial upon the issues as now made or as newly joined.

Mr. Chief Justice Day and Mr. Justice McWilliams concur.
South Central Coast, CA

Maricopa County, AZ

Great Basin Valleys, CA

San Diego County, CA

Salton Sea, CA

Santa Cruz County, AZ

Washoe County, NV

Mountain Counties, CA

San Francisco Bay, CA

Pinal County, AZ

South Coast, CA

Sacramento Valley, CA

San Joaquin Valley, CA

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

105

115

125

US EPA REGION 9 AIR QUALITY TRENDS, 1999-2009

PM-2.5 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS BY AIR BASIN

Standard: 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 24-hour average concentration.

Source: US EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.

Design Value: Three-year average of the 98th percentile concentration at the air basin's highest monitor.

Not all design values are valid due to data completeness issues. X-axis labels represent the last year of a monitor's three year average. All regionally-concurred exceptional events have been excluded from design value calculations. CONCENTRATION (μg/m3)
### SUBCHAPTER I—GAME, FUR-BEARING ANIMALS, AND FISH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6869/September 14, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and 

Rule 258 of Regulation A Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 16, 2022. 

The proceeding was stayed on August 15, 2022, based on the parties request for a Stay Pending 

Commission Consideration of Offer of Settlement. DF Growth REIT II, LLC, Admin. Proc. 

Ruling No. 6863, 2022 SEC LEXIS 2013.

On September 9, 2022, the parties jointly requested that the stay be lifted and a schedule 

established for the remaining deadlines in the proceeding, stating that they were unable to reach 

an agreement on the terms of an Offer of Settlement. Accordingly, the stay will be lifted and the 

following schedule established:

September 19, 2022 – Respondent’s opposition to the Division of Enforcement’s motion for

summary disposition

September 23, 2022 – Respondent’s reply in support of its application to quash or modify the 

Division’s investigatory subpoenas served on July 18, 2022

September 28, 2022 – The Division’s reply in support of its motion for summary disposition

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
#### § 522.14 Inmates serving civil contempt commitments.

We treat inmates serving civil contempt commitments in Bureau institutions the same as pretrial inmates. If an inmate is serving a civil contempt commitment and a concurrent criminal sentence, we treat the inmate the same as a person serving a criminal sentence.
#### Regina Moskowitz, Respondent, v. Accurate Holding Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Campbell, Respondent, v. John E. Cole, as Commissioner of Public Safety, and Others, Appellants.

(No. 1.)

Order affirmed, without costs. All concurred.
§ 5.203 Supplemental statement. ( a ) Supplemental statements shall be filed on a form provided by the Registration Unit.
( b ) The obligation to file a supplemental statement at 6-month intervals during the agency relationship shall continue even though the registrant has not engaged during the period in any activity in the interests of his foreign principal.
( c ) The time within which to file a supplemental statement may be extended for sufficient cause shown in a written application to the Assistant Attorney General.
(28 U.S.C. 509 and 510; 5 U.S.C. 301)
[Order No. 376-67, 32 FR 6362, Apr. 22, 1967, as amended by Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52355, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 2674-2003, 68 FR 33630, June 5, 2003]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41839

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE GARCIA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-657

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Garcia-Garcia (Garcia) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and 77-month sentence for being present in the United

States after a prior deportation following an aggravated felony

conviction. Garcia contends that the district court erred in

treating his Texas burglary of a habitation conviction as a crime

of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Garcia’s

argument has been rejected by this court. See United States v.

Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006); United States v. Valdez-Maltos,
No. 05-41839

-2-

443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 2006 WL 2094539 (Oct.

2, 2006) (No. 06-5473). Further, Garcia’s argument that this

court erroneously relied on United States v. Hornsby, 88 F.3d

336, 339 (5th Cir. 1996), and did not properly apply the

categorical analysis of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575

(1990), is tantamount to arguing that Garcia-Mendez was wrongly

decided. One panel of this court may not ignore the precedent

set by a prior panel. United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676

(5th Cir. 1999). 

Garcia also challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony

convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Garcia contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Garcia

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.
No. 05-41839

-3-

Garcia argues that the district court erred by ordering him

to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of

his supervised release. Such a claim is not ripe for review on

direct appeal. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d

1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9,

2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. See

id. at 1102. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
§ 701.203 Schedule of fees. ( a ) The Public Information Officer will to the extent practicable, encourage the widest possible distribution of information by permitting requests for inspection or copies of records or materials to be met without cost to the person making the request.
( b ) Fees will be charged in the case of requests which are determined by the Public Information Officer to involve a burden on staff or facilities significantly in excess of that normally accepted by the Council in handling routine requests for information.
( c ) In all instances where the Public Information Officer determines that a request for information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public (despite a § 701.203 determination of burden), such request shall be met either without cost wherever practicable or at a reduced cost to the requester. Any such reduction shall be determined by the Public Information Officer on the basis of the balance between the benefit to the general public and the cost to the Water Resources Council.
( d ) Fees shall be limited to recovery of only direct costs of search and duplication but in no event shall the fee for search and duplication exceed $2.50 per half hour, nor shall the fee for copying exceed $0.25 per page (maximum per page dimension of 8 × 14 inches).
( e ) Unless a request for information specifically states that whatever cost is involved will be acceptable, or acceptable up to a specified limit that covers anticipated costs, a request that is expected to involve an assessed fee in excess of $50.00 will not be deemed to have been received until the requester is advised promptly upon physical receipt of the request of the anticipated cost and agrees to bear it.
( f ) When anticipated fees exceed $50.00, a deposit for 25% of the amount must be made within 10 days of the notice to the requester of the initial determination.
( g ) The Council reserves the right to limit the number of copies of any document that will be provided to any one person.
**EXHIBIT
32.2**
 ****
 Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.
 
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis Mailhot,
Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:
 
 The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
 
 Dated:
May 6, 2005
 
 /s/
Francis Mailhot

Francis
Mailhot,
Chief
Accounting Officer