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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4184 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require contractors and subcontractors working on military construction projects to comply with licensing 

requirements for employees working at the project location. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require contractors and subcontractors working on military construction 

projects to comply with licensing requirements for employees working at the project location. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4184 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUB2 CONTRACTORS WORKING ON MILITARY CON3 STRUCTION PROJECTS TO COMPLY WITH 

4 STATE AND LOCAL WORKFORCE LICENSING 

5 REQUIREMENTS. 

6 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Subchapter III of chapter 169 

7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

8 after section 2855 the following new section: 

9 ‘‘§ 2855a. Application of State and local workforce li10 censing requirements to military con11 struction projects 

12 ‘‘(a) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS.—As a condi13 tion of each contract awarded in connection with a mili14 tary construction project or a military family housing 

15 project, the Secretary concerned shall require the con16 tractor (and any subcontractor of the contractor) to com17 ply with workforce licensing requirements imposed by the 

18 State and other jurisdictions in which the project is con19 ducted for all employees of the contractor and subcontrac20 tors who work at the project location. 

21 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of Defense may 

22 waive the application of subsection (a) to a military con23 struction project or a military family housing project, on 

24 a case-by-case basis, in the interest of national security. 

25 ‘‘(c) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—The re26 quirements of this section shall apply notwithstanding any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4184 IH

1 immunity of the Secretary concerned or officers, agents, 

2 or employees of the Department of Defense under any law 

3 or rule of law. 

4 ‘‘(d) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

5 ‘State’ means any of the several States, the District of 

6 Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American 

7 Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 

8 Northern Mariana Islands, or Guam.’’. 

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

10 at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by insert11 ing after the item relating to section 2855 the following 

12 new item: 

‘‘2855a. Application of State and local workforce licensing requirements to military construction projects.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, James H. Long, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of I-Sector Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 15, 2005 /s/ JAMES H. LONG   James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24186
<ALLOWANCES>                                       587
<INVENTORY>                                       8555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   589
<PP&E>                                            3922
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   37772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22697
<SALES>                                          39840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 39840
<CGS>                                            33890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    435
<INCOME-TAX>                                       270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                165
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       165
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        


</TABLE>
#### Frances M. Leone, as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald R. Leone, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. South Buffalo Railway Company, Appellant, and Harold Koch et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business as Young, Young, Koch, Raszman & Everingham, Respondents.

Amended judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict of $92,500 to the sum of $75,000, and the verdict of $10,000 for conscious pain and suffering to the sum of $5,000, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of these appeals to any party, on the ground that the verdict of the jury is excessive. Amended judgment insofar as it dismissed the complaint as to defendants Koch, and others, affirmed, without costs. All concur. Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1000.]
§ 120.17 End-use monitoring. ( a ) Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2785) and related delegations of authority, the Department of State is required to establish a monitoring program in order to improve accountability with respect to defense articles and defense services, sold, leased, or exported under Department of State licenses or other approvals under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act and this subchapter.
( b ) All exports of defense articles, technical data, services, and brokering activities made pursuant to this subchapter are subject to end-use monitoring by the Department of State through the Blue Lantern program.
§ 135.1 Authority. ( a ) Under section 3 of the HAVANA Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-46), codified in 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i), the Secretary of State or other agency heads may provide a payment for a qualifying injury to the brain to a covered employee or covered dependent, who incurred a qualifying injury to the brain on or after January 1, 2016. The authority to provide such payments is at the sole discretion of the Secretary or their designee.
( b ) These regulations are issued in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i)(4) and also apply to former covered employees of the Department of State and their covered dependents.
( c ) For current employees of the Department of State (hereinafter, “the Department”), applicable procedures are located in the Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3660 and its subchapters).
```

[Federal Register: January 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 3)]
[Notices]               
[Page 856-857]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ja10-31]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 9 a.m.-9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Pending Decisional Matters:
    (a) Lead in Electronic Devices--Final Rule;
    (b) Mandatory Recall Notice--Final Rule.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.

[[Page 857]]

    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: December 28, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31295 Filed 1-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
```
§ 4.36 Use, amendment and filing of Disclosure Document. ( a ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, all information contained in the Disclosure Document must be current as of the date of the Document; *Provided, however,* that performance information must be current as of a date not more than three months preceding the date of the Document.
( b ) No commodity trading advisor may use a Disclosure Document dated more than twelve months prior to the date of its use.
( c ) ( 1 ) If the commodity trading advisor knows or should know that the Disclosure Document is materially inaccurate or incomplete in any respect, it must correct that defect and must distribute the correction to: ( i ) All existing clients in the trading program within 21 calendar days of the date upon which the trading advisor first knows or has reason to know of the defect; and
( ii ) Each previously solicited prospective client for the trading program prior to entering into an agreement to direct or to guide such prospective client's commodity interest account pursuant to the program. The trading advisor may furnish the correction by way of an amended Disclosure Document, a sticker on the Document, or other similar means.
( 2 ) The trading advisor may not use the Disclosure Document until such correction is made.
( d ) ( 1 ) The commodity trading advisor must electronically file with the National Futures Association, pursuant to the electronic filing procedures of the National Futures Association, the Disclosure Document for each trading program that it offers or that it intends to offer not less than 21 calendar days prior to the date the trading advisor first intends to deliver the Document to a prospective client in the trading program; and
( 2 ) The commodity trading advisor must electronically file with the National Futures Association, pursuant to the electronic filing procedures of the National Futures Association, the subsequent amendments to the Disclosure Document for each trading program that it offers or that it intends to offer within 21 calendar days of the date upon which the trading advisor first knows or has reason to know of the defect requiring the amendment.
[60 FR 38192, July 25, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 18268, Apr. 15, 1997; 65 FR 58650, Oct. 2, 2000; 67 FR 77411, Dec. 18, 2002; 74 FR 9569, Mar. 5, 2009; 78 FR 52335, Aug. 22, 2013]
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED (Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

JackB. Buchold certifies as follows:

3.               I am the Chief Financial Officer of The BankHoldings.

4.               The Form 10-Q/A of The Bank Holdings for theQuarter Ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of The BankHoldings.

 
| Date:  | January 19, 2007 |                     | /s/ Jack B. Buchold |   |
|--------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   |             | THE BANK  HOLDINGS       |
|   |             | Jack B. Buchold          |
|   |             | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27442]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as 
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) 
and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of 
Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      License No.            Name/Address            Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
004108N................  DRT International,    October 24, 2004.
                          Incorporated, 7762
                          NW. 72nd Avenue,
                          Medley, FL 33166.
004263N................  Distribution          September 20, 2004.
                          Transportation
                          Services Company,
                          827 West Terra
                          Lane, O'Fallon, MO
                          63366.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 04-27442 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Domenic R. Urciuoli, Respondent, v. Susan M. Ciciarelli et al., Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff failed to show sufficient facts by affidavit and other available proof to obtain summary judgment. He did not submit the tax deed, upon which his claim to title is based or the certificate of tax sale or any notices and proofs respecting substantial compliance with the law in the proceedings of which the tax sale was the culmination. Ilis proofs are insufficient to invoke the presumptions of regularity of such proceedings specified in the act to revise and codify the law providing for the collection of taxes in the County of Onondaga. (L. 1937, eh. 690, as amd. by L. 1939, ch. 432; L. 1949, eh. 843.) Triable issues of fact are presented as to whether there was noncompliance with statutory mandates which constituted jurisdictional defects rendering the tax sale void and concerning the constitutionality and validity of the Statute of Limitations contained in section 10 of said act. (See *Cameron Estates*v. *Deering,*308 N. Y. 24; *People*v. *Inman,*197 N. Y. 200; *Parmenter*v. *State of New York,*135 N. Y. 154, 167; *Mangoup Val. Co.*v. *Orange Rod & Gun Club,*253 App. Div. 465, affd. 280 N. Y. 582.) (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law for a declaratory judgment adjudging plaintiff to be the owner in a fee simple absolute of certain promises.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### R. P. Jones, appellee, v. Nels Nelson, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,181.

Action of forcible entry and detainer. Judgment for plaintiff for possession. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1922.

Green, Beverly & Rice, for appellant; Charles E. Green, of counsel. James Ewing Davis and Brown, Fox & Blumberg, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

MARIA GURREONERO and JOSE GURREONERO
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1378

[ August 31, 2022 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case

No. CACE

- 20

- 010803

.

Elizabeth K. Russo of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami , for appellant.

John S. Bernstein of Bernstein ǀ Polsky, P.A.

, Boca Rato n, for appellee s

.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

C ONNER

, J

.

Appellant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), appeals the trial court’s order enforcing a judicially revised proposal for settlement (“PFS”) between it and Appellees, Maria and Jose Gurreonero (“Insureds”). Insureds concede error. We agree with

U niversal, and accept Insureds’ confession of error, that the trial court erred when it judicially altered Universal’s original PFS without Universal’s consent, permitted Insureds to accept the judicially altered PFS after the time to accept the original PF S had expired, and then ordered Universal to comply with the judicially altered PFS. See P & O Ports Fla., Inc. v. Cont’l Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc. , 904 So. 2d 507, 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[O]nce the trial court concluded that the parties could not c hange the provisions in the non

- compete clause as a condition of the offer, it was error to strike the improper condition and to allow Continental to accept the judicially altered offer. We conclude that Continental was not free to accept the offer as mod ified by the court and P & O was not legally bound by its offer which had been materially altered by the court. Once the court changed the terms, there was no offer, as P & O clearly did not intend to2 make the monetary offer without the elimination of the non

- compete provision.”) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we reverse and

remand with instructions directing the trial court to : (1) strike paragraph three of its March 11, 2022 order, altering Universal’s original PFS ; (2) vacate its May 16, 20 22 enforcement order; and (3) conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with instructions

.

G ERBER and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 204.9 Administrative offset procedures. ( a ) If the debtor does not exercise the right to request a review within the time specified in § 204.4, or if as a result of the review, it is determined that the debt is due and no written agreement is executed, then administrative offset shall be ordered in accordance with this subpart without further notice.
( b ) *Travel advance.* The Commission will deduct outstanding advances provided to Commission travelers from other amounts owed the traveler by the agency whenever possible and practicable. Monies owed by an employee for outstanding travel advances that cannot be deducted from other travel amounts due that employee will be collected through salary offset as described in subpart B of this part.
( c ) *Requests for offset to the Department of the Treasury or other Federal agencies.* The Chairperson (or his or her designee) may notify the Department of the Treasury of delinquent debts for purposes of administrative offset, and may request that a debt owed to the Commission be administratively offset against funds due and payable to a debtor by another Federal agency. In requesting administrative offset, the Commission, as creditor, will certify in writing to the Federal agency holding funds of the debtor that: ( 1 ) The debtor owes the past due and legally enforceable debt; and
( 2 ) The debtor has been afforded the necessary due process rights.
( d ) *Requests for offset from other Federal agencies.* Any Federal agency may request that funds due and payable to its debtor by the Commission be administratively offset in order to collect a debt owed to such Federal agency by the debtor. The Commission shall initiate the requested offset only upon: ( 1 ) Receipt of written certification from the crecitor agency that: ( i ) The debtor owes the past due and legally enforceable debt; and
( ii ) The debtor has been afforded the necessary due process rights.
( 2 ) A determination by the Commission that collection by offset against funds payable by the Commission would be in the best interest of the United States as determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and that such offset would not otherwise be contrary to law.
[58 FR 64370, Dec. 7, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 54131, Oct. 26, 2001]