alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.2





The form of Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Agreement”), filed as Exhibit 10.6 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on From 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, contains blanks where the executive’s name, target number of shares, grant date, vesting date, performance period, shortened performance period start date, and months in term provided under the Agreement vary for each executive.  The information for the executive officer who entered into the Agreement is provided in the following chart:








Executive Officer
Target number

of shares
Grant date
Vesting date
Performance period
Shortened performance period start date
Months

in termJoseph J. MarcAurele
12,500
January 20 ,

2010
January 20,

2013
January 1, 2010

through December 31, 2012
January 1, 2010
36
### §2693. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(3), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2160

Section, Pub. L. 95–105, title IV, §413, Aug. 17, 1977, 91 Stat. 856, related to employment of family members abroad in non-career positions. See sections 3951, 3968, and 4026 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Cause number: 01-18-00485-CV

Style: In the Interest of K.L.W., A Child

Date motions filed*: July 27, 2018

Type of motions: Motion to transfer case to another court of appeals and motion to 

proceed as pro se and special appearance

Party filing motions: Pro se Appellants Brandy Brenay Charles and Ronald Dwayne 

Whitfield

Document to be filed: N/A

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

☒ Denied

☒ Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

☐ Other: After the Texas Supreme Court’s July 30, 2018 Order denied appellants’ pro se 

request to transfer this case, their motion is denied. Juliane Crow filed a notice of 

appearance for appellant Brandy Brenay Charles in this Court on July 30, 2018, noting 

that the trial court had appointed her as appellate co-counsel for Charles on July 10, 2018, 

and the supplemental clerk’s record includes the other July 10, 2018 order appointing 

Valeria Brock as appellant Ronald Whitfield’s appellate counsel. Because Charles and 

Whitfield are not entitled to hybrid representation, their motions to proceed as pro se and 

special appearances are dismissed as moot. See, e.g., In re D.W., 445 S.W.3d 913, 915 

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (declining to consider pro se brief filed by 

mother in termination case after her counsel had filed brief). ______________________

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura Carter Higley_

 X Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: August 2, 2018_
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.166 Requests for determinations based on nonavailability of U.S. workers. ( a ) *Standards for requests.* If a temporary agricultural labor certification has been partially granted or denied based on the CO's determination that able, willing, available, eligible, and qualified U.S. workers are available, and, on or after 30 calendar days before the first date of need, some or all of those U.S. workers are, in fact, no longer able, willing, eligible, qualified, or available, the employer may request a new temporary agricultural labor certification determination from the CO. Prior to making a new determination, the CO will promptly ascertain (which may be through the SWA or other sources of information on U.S. worker availability) whether specific able, willing, eligible and qualified replacement U.S. workers are available or can be reasonably expected to be present at the employer's establishment within 72 hours from the date the employer's request was received. The CO will expeditiously, but in no case later than 72 hours after the time a complete request (including the signed statement included in paragraph (b) of this section) is received, make a determination on the request under paragraph (c) of this section. An employer may appeal a denial of such a determination in accordance with the procedures contained in § 655.171.
( b ) *Unavailability of U.S. workers.* The employer's request for a new determination must be made directly to the CO in writing using an electronic method(s) designated by the OFLC Administrator, unless the employer requests to file the request by mail as set forth in § 655.130(c). If the employer requests the new determination by asserting solely that U.S. workers have become unavailable, the employer must submit to the CO a signed statement confirming such assertion. If such signed statement is not received by the CO within 72 hours of the CO's receipt of the request for a new determination, the CO will deny the request.
( c ) *Notification of determination.* If the CO determines that U.S. workers have become unavailable and cannot identify sufficient available U.S. workers who are able, willing, eligible, and qualified or who are likely to become available, the CO will grant the employer's request for a new determination on the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* in accordance with the procedures contained in § 655.162 or § 655.165. However, this does not preclude an employer from submitting subsequent requests for new determinations, if warranted, based on subsequent facts concerning purported nonavailability of U.S. workers or referred workers not being eligible workers or not able, willing, or qualified because of lawful, job-related reasons.
#### § 345.112 Final contribution reports.

Upon termination of employer status, as determined under part 301 of this chapter, the last contribution report of the employer shall be so indicated by checking the box on the Form DC-1 entitled “Final Report”. Such contribution report shall be filed with the Board on or before the sixtieth day after the final date for which there is payable compensation with respect to which contribution is required. The period covered by each such contribution report shall be plainly written thereon, indicating the final date for which compensation is payable. There shall be executed as part of each such final contribution report a statement giving the address at which compensation records will be kept and the name of the person keeping the records.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3220-0012)
(No. 74-CC-346

#### Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 2, 1974.*

Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
### §1963. United Nations Emergency Force

The President should continue to furnish facilities and military assistance, within the provisions of applicable law and established policies, to the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, with a view to maintaining the truce in that region.

(Pub. L. 85–7, §4, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 6.)
§ 408.931 How much will we withhold from your title II and title XVI benefits to recover a title VIII overpayment? ( a ) If past-due benefits are payable to you, we will withhold the lesser of the entire overpayment balance or the entire amount of past-due benefits.
( b ) ( 1 ) We will collect the overpayment from current monthly benefits due in a month under title II and title XVI by withholding the lesser of the amount of the entire overpayment balance or: ( i ) 10 percent of the monthly title II benefits payable for that month and
( ii ) in the case of title XVI benefits, an amount no greater than the lesser of the benefit payable for that month or an amount equal to 10 percent of your income for that month (including such monthly benefit but excluding payments under title II when recovery is also made from title II benefits and excluding income excluded pursuant to §§ 416.1112 and 416.1124 of this chapter).
( 2 ) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply if: ( i ) You request and we approve a different rate of withholding, or
( ii ) You or your spouse willfully misrepresented or concealed material information in connection with the overpayment.
( c ) In determining whether to grant your request that we withhold less than the amount described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, we will use the criteria applied under § 408.923 to similar requests about withholding from title VIII benefits.
( d ) If you or your spouse willfully misrepresented or concealed material information in connection with the overpayment, we will collect the overpayment by withholding the lesser of the overpayment balance or the entire amount of title II benefits and title XVI benefits payable to you. We will not collect at a lesser rate. (See § 408.923 for what we mean by concealment of material information.)
[70 FR 16, Jan. 3, 2005]
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1045 How and when we determine whether the performance accuracy standard is met. ( a ) *How we determine performance accuracy.* We determine a State agency's performance accuracy rate on the basis of decision and documentation errors identified in our review of the sample cases.
( b ) *Frequency of review.* Title II and title XVI initial performance accuracy are monitored together on a quarterly basis. The determinations as to whether the performance accuracy threshold has been met is made at the end of each quarter each year. Quarterly State-by-State combined initial performance accuracy rates are compared to the established threshold level.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ALICIA JUANA DURAN

MARTINEZ, AKA Alicia Duran, AKA

Juana Martinez,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72975

Agency No. A200-306-002

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2017** 

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Maria Alicia Juana Duran Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

MAR 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual

findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Duran Martinez was statutorily

ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because she is

inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), where substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that she reentered the United States without

being admitted, after previously accruing more than one year of unlawful presence. 

See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Contrary to Duran Martinez’s contention, the agency did not rely on her witness’s

testimony in making that determination. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 15-72975
#### Rosina Uhl, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. International Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that under the rule of law charged by the trial judge no negligence was shown entitling the plaintiff to recover.
### §3371. Findings

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since 2016, the Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, the Solomon Islands, and Kiribati have severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favor of diplomatic relations with China.

(2) Taiwan was invited to participate in the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), as an observer annually between 2009 and 2016. Since the 2016 election of President Tsai, the PRC has increasingly resisted Taiwan's participation in the WHA. Taiwan was not invited to attend the WHA in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021.

(3) The Taipei Flight Information Region reportedly served 1,750,000 flights and 68,900,000 passengers in 2018, and is home to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, the eleventh busiest airport in the world. Taiwan has been excluded from participating at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2013.

(4) United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not address the issue of representation of Taiwan and its people at the United Nations, nor does it give the PRC the right to represent the people of Taiwan.

(Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LV, §5516, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3317.)
#### § 661.317 Who may be selected to represent a particular One-Stop partner program on the Local Board when there is more than one partner program entity in the local area?

When there is more than one grant recipient, administrative entity or organization responsible for administration of funds of a particular One-stop partner program in the local area, the chief elected official may appoint one or more members to represent all of those particular partner program entities. In making such appointments, the local elected official may solicit nominations from the partner program entities.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4319 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4319

To eliminate the authority of the executive branch to further restrict 
   the conduct of individuals in relation to firearms or ammunition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2016

     Mr. Perry (for himself, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. 
Loudermilk, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. 
Cole, Mr. Massie, Mr. Lucas, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Miller of 
   Florida, and Mrs. Love) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the authority of the executive branch to further restrict 
   the conduct of individuals in relation to firearms or ammunition.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Defense Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO FURTHER RESTRICT CONDUCT 
              OF INDIVIDUALS IN RELATION TO FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.

    No officer or employee of the Federal Government may take any 
action that would result in a limitation on the conduct of an 
individual in relation to a firearm or ammunition that is more 
restrictive than the limitations on the conduct that are in effect as 
of January 3, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**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 Quarterly Report of Marwich II, Ltd. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy S. Morris,
      Chief Executive 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:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











By: /s/ Timothy
      S.
      Morris


Timothy
      S. Morris


C hief
      Executive Officer








November
      27, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4233 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4233

   To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management 
  consistency by incorporating the rocks and small islands along the 
    coast of Orange County, California, into the California Coastal 
 National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet 
 the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County's rocks 
               and small islands, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2015

 Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Royce, and 
 Mrs. Mimi Walters of California) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management 
  consistency by incorporating the rocks and small islands along the 
    coast of Orange County, California, into the California Coastal 
 National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet 
 the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County's rocks 
               and small islands, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF ROCKS AND SMALL ISLANDS ALONG THE COAST OF 
              ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) California Coastal National Monument.--The Act of February 18, 
1931, entitled ``An Act to reserve for public use rocks, pinnacles, 
reefs, and small islands along the seacoast of Orange County, 
California'' (46 Stat. 1172) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``, temporarily reserved'' and all that 
        follows through ``United States'' and inserting ``part of the 
        California Coastal National Monument and shall be administered 
        as such''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In administering 
        the lands added to the California Coastal National Monument by 
        this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that 
        economic and recreational activities conducted on such lands 
        shall continue to be allowed to the same extent to which such 
        activities were authorized and ongoing on the day before such 
        lands were added to the national monument.''.
    (b) Repeal of Reservation.--Section 31 of the Act of May 28, 1935, 
entitled ``An Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to dispose of 
certain lighthouse reservations, and for other purposes'' is hereby 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
### §1645d. Claims based on ownership interest in or debt or other obligation owing by corporations or other legal entities

#### (a) Nationals of United States; charge on property

A claim under section 1645b of this title based upon an ownership interest in any corporation, association, or other entity which is a national of the United States may not be considered. A claim under section 1645b of this title based upon a debt or other obligation owing by any corporation, association, or other entity organized under the laws of the United States, or of any State, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be considered only if such debt or other obligation is a charge on property which has been nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise taken by Vietnam.

#### (b) Direct ownership

A claim under section 1645b of this title based upon a direct ownership interest in a corporation, association, or other entity may be considered, subject to the other provisions of this subchapter, if such corporation, association, or other entity on the date of the loss was not a national of the United States, without regard to the per centum of ownership vested in the claimant.

#### (c) Indirect ownership

A claim under section 1645b of this title based upon an indirect ownership interest in a corporation, association, or other entity may be considered, subject to the other provisions of this subchapter, only if at least 25 per centum of the entire ownership interest thereof, at the time of such loss, was vested in nationals of the United States or if, at the time of the loss, nationals of the United States in fact controlled the corporation, association, or entity, as determined by the Commission.

#### (d) Computation of award

The amount of any claim covered by subsection (b) or (c) of this section shall be calculated on the basis of the total loss suffered by the corporation, association, or other entity, with respect to which the claim is made, and shall bear the same proportion to such loss as the ownership interest of the claimant at the time of loss bears to the entire ownership interest thereof.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title VII, §705, as added Pub. L. 96–606, Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3535.)
### §2425. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–424, title VI, §604, Oct. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 961

Section, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. III, §665, as added Pub. L. 94–161, title III, §317, Dec. 20, 1975, 89 Stat. 867, authorized appropriations for the interim period July 1, 1976 through Sept. 30, 1976 of such amounts as were necessary to conduct programs for which funding was authorized for fiscal year 1976 by the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 provided the total amount authorized not exceed one-fourth of the total authorized for fiscal year 1976 for such programs and activities.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 605 of Pub. L. 95–424, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 2151 of this title.
Of^PTOFTRANSPORMIO N {•OC'KEIS

OST-2010-004 6 Secretary o f

th e DO T Dear Sir : D o yo u believ e i n miracles ? I t i s amiracl e tha t

s o fe w resident s kno w wha t s o man y resident s wan t

withou t askin g thei r

opinion . Sto p th e few le t th e man y b e heard . Kee p merce r i nMountain . Rura l Merce r

County Residen t
### **Exhibit 99.1**

###  

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In conjunctionwith the filing of Intrusion Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Ward Paxton,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

 

 

(2)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly present, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ G. Ward Paxton                   | Date: |   May 13, 2003 |
|--------------------------------------|-------|---------------------|
| G. Ward Paxton                       |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----