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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2583 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Decanedioic acid, Bis(2,2,6,6,- 

tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Decanedioic acid, 

Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl). 

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

3 SECTION 1. DECANEDIOIC ACID, BIS(2,2,6,6,-TETRAMETHYL4 4-PIPERIDINYL). 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following: 

‘‘ 9902.34.21 Decanedioic acid, 

Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4- 

piperidinyl) (CAS No. 

52829–07–9) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.39.20) .. Free No Change No Change On or Before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2583 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2726 

To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by private 

enterprise to provide such services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services except to 

remedy market failures by private enterprise to provide 

such services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Innovation 

5 in Telecom Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2726 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES. 

2 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 253 of the Communica3 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 253) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(g) PROVISION OF SERVICES BY STATE AND LOCAL

6 GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES.— 

7 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—Effective 60 days after the 

8 date of enactment of the Preserving Innovation in 

9 Telecom Act of 2005, neither any State or local gov10 ernment, nor any entity affiliated with such a gov11 ernment, shall provide any telecommunications, tele12 communications service, information service, or cable 

13 service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction 

14 of such government in which a corporation or other 

15 private entity that is not affiliated with any State or 

16 local government is offering a substantially similar 

17 service. 

18 ‘‘(2) GRANDFATHER PROVISION.—Paragraph 

19 (1) shall not prohibit a State or local government or 

20 affiliated entity thereof from providing in any geo21 graphic area within the jurisdiction of such govern22 ment any service that such government or entity was 

23 providing on the date of enactment of the Preserving 

24 Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005.’’. 
3 

•HR 2726 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (f) of 

2 section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

3 U.S.C. 541(f)) is repealed. 

Æ
§ 50.76 Swaps entered into by international financial institutions. ( a ) Swaps entered into by an international financial institution shall be exempt from the clearing requirement of section 2(h)(1)(A) of the Act.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the term *international financial institution* means: ( 1 ) African Development Bank;
( 2 ) African Development Fund;
( 3 ) Asian Development Bank;
( 4 ) Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica;
( 5 ) Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Middle East and North Africa;
( 6 ) Caribbean Development Bank;
( 7 ) Corporación Andina de Fomento;
( 8 ) Council of Europe Development Bank;
( 9 ) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
( 10 ) European Investment Bank;
( 11 ) European Investment Fund;
( 12 ) European Stability Mechanism;
( 13 ) Inter-American Development Bank;
( 14 ) Inter-American Investment Corporation;
( 15 ) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
( 16 ) International Development Association;
( 17 ) International Finance Corporation;
( 18 ) International Monetary Fund;
( 19 ) Islamic Development Bank;
( 20 ) Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency;
( 21 ) Nordic Investment Bank;
( 22 ) North American Development Bank; and
( 23 ) Any other entity that provides financing for national or regional development in which the U.S. Government is a shareholder or contributing member.
Order entered October 3, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00893

- CV

CIBIL KURIAKOSE VADACKANETH , Appellant

V.

SEENA ASARIYATHU SEBASTIAN , Appellee

On Appea l from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 21

- 06642

O RDER

Before the Court are appellee’s September 20, 2022 motion to rescind her

request for oral argument and appellant’s September 23, 2022 response

. The Cou rt

will determine the necessity of oral argument at the time the appeal is set for

submission and after its review of the briefs

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
exv10w1



 


EXHIBIT 10.1




NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION STRUCTURE




On January 26, 2006, Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. adopted the following compensation structure
for its non-employee directors:




	 	•	 	$20,000 annual retainer paid quarterly in July, October, February and April;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $50,000 annual retainer for the Chair of the Board, paid quarterly in
July, October, February and April;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $30,000 annual retainer for the Lead Director paid quarterly in July,
October, February and April;
	 
	 	•	 	$3,000 per day for each full board meeting, whether such meeting is held in person or
telephonically
	 
	 	•	 	$4,000 per Audit and Finance Committee meeting for the Chair and $1,750 per meeting for
each other committee member, whether such meeting is held in person or telephonically
	 
	 	•	 	$2,000 per Compensation Committee meeting or Corporate Governance & Nominations
Committee meeting for such Committee’s Chair and $750 for each other Committee member,
whether such meeting is held in person or telephonically
	 
	 	•	 	5,000 restricted stock units on initial election or appointment to the Board
	 
	 	•	 	2,000 restricted stock units annually on the date of re-election at the annual meeting
#### Edward Stearns v. New York City Transit Authority et al.

Motion granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, on condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points upon the attorneys for defendants-respondents and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points, together with the original record, with this court on or before September 6, 1960, with notice of argument for the October 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
#### George C. McCaskey v. Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Company.

Motion granted and appeal restored to calendar for the October term, 1920. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Gre,enbaum, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sophie Ettlinger, Respondent, v. State Insurance Fund, Appellant, and Oxford Paper Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by an insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed an award upon respondent employer Office Temporaries and relieved respondent Oxford Paper Company. Respondent Office Temporaries argues in support of the decision which its carrier contests. Office Temporaries is in the business of furnishing temporary workers to businesses. It pays all wages, making all tax, disability, unemployment and social security deductions and provides workmen’s compensation insurance as well as certain voluntary benefits. The customer agrees not to appropriate to his own employment persons thus furnished. The employee furnishes time sheets to Office Temporaries which bills the customer weekly. Office Temporaries has the right to discharge, to transfer and otherwise to control the persons furnished. Respondent Oxford Paper Company had about 95 employees of its own but sometimes obtained temporary workers from Office Temporaries who furnished claimant for temporary work as a secretary for about two days per week. Claimant had previously been assigned by Office Temporaries to some 50 other customers. Claimant was injured while at work on Oxford Paper Company’s premises. The case is directly in point with *Matter of Meyer*v. *Tops Temporary Personnel*(286 App. Div. 1048). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs.
#### Lillian Spiegelberg et al., Respondents, v Aramis Gomez, as Commissioner of the Department of Relocation and Housing Maintenance, et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 18, 1976, adjudicating that respondents are without authority to raise rents as to title vesting tenants and enjoining respondents, is unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Petitioners in this article 78 proceeding are residential tenants of premises which have been condemned by the city under exercise of power of eminent domain on various dates between 1963 to 1970. Petitioners contend that the city is without authority to increase their rents above the rents paid at the time of title vesting. They based this contention on the language of subdivision b of section B15-37.0 of the New York City Administrative Code, which provides that persons in possession of condemned premises at the time of vesting title "shall at the option of the city become tenants at will of such city and shall, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, pay the same rent in effect immediately prior to vesting of title”. Petitioners contend that this constitutes a statutory rent fixing and that there is no authority under existing law to change that rent even though years have elapsed since the title vesting. We do not think that this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The legislative history indicates that the purpose of this enactment was to fix a rent payable to the city immediately upon vesting so as to avoid an hiatus period during which tenants would remain in possession with no provision as to what, if any, rent they should pay until after a court had fixed reasonable value of use and occupancy. Experience had demonstrated that this hiatus had caused substantial loss of rental to the city. The statute obviously did not contemplate the present situation where, because of the city’s fiscal crisis, the contemplated public use of the condemned property has had to be indefinitely postponed and tenants have been in possession for 7 to 14 years. In our view, the reasonable interpretation of the statute is merely that the rent payable before vesting shall continue until such time *549as it is changed, and that there shall be no hiatus in the amount or the existence of the rental obligation because of the title vesting, and we so interpret the statute. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Frederick W. Matthiessen, Deceased.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
§ 505.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Access Appeal Committee (AAC).* The body established by and responsible to the Broadcasting Board for reviewing appeals made by individuals to amend records held by the Agency.
( b ) Agency, BBG, our, we or us. The BBG, its offices, divisions, branches and its worldwide operations.
( c ) *Amend.* To make a correction to or expunge any portion of a record about an individual which that individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely or complete.
( d ) Individual or you. A citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
( e ) *Maintain.* Collect, use, store, disseminate or any combination of these record keeping functions; exercise of control over and hence responsibility and accountability for systems of records.
( f ) *Record.* Any information maintained by the Agency about an individual that can be reproduced, including finger or voice prints and photographs, and which is retrieved by that particular individual's name or personal identifier, such as a social security number.
( g ) *Routine use.* With respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose, which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected. The common ordinary purposes for which records are used and all of the proper and necessary uses even if any such uses occur infrequently.
( h ) *Statistical record.* A record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided in 12 U.S.C.8.
( i ) *System of records.* A group of records under the maintenance and control of the Agency from which information is retrieved by the name or personal identifier of the individual.
( j ) *Personnel record.* Any information about an individual that is maintained in a system of records by the Agency that is needed for personnel management or processes such as staffing, employee development, retirement, grievances and appeals.
( k ) *Worldwide Operations.* Any of the foreign service establishments of the Agency.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2645 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2645

      For the relief of Web's Construction Company, Incorporated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2005

   Mr. Wynn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      For the relief of Web's Construction Company, Incorporated.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Web's Construction Company, 
Incorporated, a company incorporated in the State of Maryland, 
$262,500, plus a reasonable rate of interest (as determined by the 
Secretary) for the period beginning February 1, 1990, and ending on the 
date of such payment, for construction work performed for the benefit 
of the Corps of Engineers in connection with Contract No. DACA31-88-C-
0316. Payment of the sum shall be in full satisfaction of any claim of 
Web's Construction Company, Incorporated, against the United States in 
connection with the construction work.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to, or received by, any 
agent or attorney for any service rendered in connection with the claim 
described in section 1. Any person who violates this section shall be 
guilty of an infraction, and shall be subject to a fine in the amount 
provided in title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00391-CV

Aero Nautical Leasing Corporation and

Lawrence Allen, Appellants

v.

State of Texas; City of College Station, Texas; and

County of Brazos, Texas, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GV103293, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING 

The parties have filed an agreed motion to reverse the judgment of the trial court, remand 

for further proceedings, and to tax costs against the party incurring same. 

In accordance with the agreement, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause 

remanded for further proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d). 

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Reversed and Remanded on Agreed Motion

Filed: September 26, 2002

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN RECTOR, Trustee, EDWIN

RECTOR, in his personal capacity;

EDWIN RECTOR 1995 CHARITABLE

REMAINDER TRUST,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ALLEN D. WYKLE; STEPHEN R.

KINNIER; APPROVED FEDERAL SAVINGS

No. 00-1139

BANK; APPROVED FINANCIAL

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.; PRICE

WATERHOUSE; PETER COODE; PATRICK

M. BARBERICH; GRAY LAMBE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CA-99-499-A)

Submitted: July 20, 2000

Decided: September 14, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Thomas H. Roberts, Tim Schulte, THOMAS H. ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Glen Michael

Robertson, PAYNE, GATES, FARTHING & RADD, P.C., Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Rector, individually and in his capacity as trustee for the

Edwin Rector 1995 Charitable Remainder Trust ("Trust"), and the

Trust appeal from the district court's order awarding four Defendants

in this action attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $33,503.82.

The attorney's fees constituted a sanction imposed pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11. In setting the amount of the sanction,

the district court referred not to case law interpreting Rule 11, but to

case law addressing sanctions imposed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1988(b) (West Supp. 2000). Factors governing the amount of sanctions awarded under Rule 11 are quite different from factors governing the amount of attorney's fees awarded under§ 1988. Compare In

re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 523-25 (4th Cir. 1990), with Johnson v.

Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).

Because the incorrect standard was used, it is impossible to determine

whether the district court abused its discretion in setting the amount

of the sanction. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court.

The matter is remanded so that the district court may apply the proper

standard in assessing the Rule 11 sanction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
First Department,

March, 1978

(March 2, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Salvatore Barbalinardo, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 14, 1976, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
### §3796gg. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796gg was editorially reclassified as section 10441 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2589 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain filament yarns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

filament yarns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FILAMENT YARNS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.90 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain filament yarns) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2589 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 219.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
Order entered May 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00023-CV

ETHEL LOCKHART AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS OF 711 LENTISCO DRIVE 

LANCASTER, TEXAS 75146, Appellants

V.

SILVER BAY PROPERTY CORP. MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR 2012-C 

PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-05335-B

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY as moot appellee’s motion to 

dismiss.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
§ 96.58 Notification of accreditation and approval decisions. ( a ) The accrediting entity must routinely inform applicants in writing of its accreditation and approval decisions—whether an application has been granted or denied—as those decisions are finalized. The accrediting entity must routinely provide this information to the Secretary in writing.
( b ) The accrediting entity may, in its discretion, communicate with agencies and persons that have applied for accreditation or approval about the status of their pending applications to afford them an opportunity to correct deficiencies that may hinder or prevent accreditation or approval.
[79 FR 40635, July 14, 2014]