alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.3.16B

                                  AMENDMENT #1
            TO THE QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN OF GENERAL
                               COMMUNICATION, INC.


                  WHEREAS, Section 11.6 of the Qualified Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of General Communication, Inc. (the "Plan") provides the Company with the
power and right to amend the Plan;

                  NOW THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan by the
adoption of the following amendments:

                  1. The following hereby is added to the end of Section
                     2.1(ix):

                  For limitation years beginning on and after January1, 2001,
                  for purposes of applying the limitations described in Section
                  4.8[b] of the Plan, compensation paid or made available during
                  such limitation years shall include elective amounts that are
                  not includable in the gross income of the employee by reason
                  of Code Section 132(f)(4) (qualified transportation benefits).
                  This amendment shall also apply to include elective deferrals
                  for qualified transportation expenses in the definition of
                  compensation for purposes of Section 2.1(ix) of the Plan for
                  plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2001.

                  2. The following paragraph hereby is added to the end of
                     Section 8.7[a][5]:

                           With respect to distributions under the Plan made in
                  calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2001, the Plan
                  will apply the minimum distribution requirements of Section
                  401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code in accordance with the
                  regulations under Section 401(a)(9) that were proposed in
                  January 2001, notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the
                  contrary. This amendment shall continue in effect until the
                  end of the last calendar beginning before the effective date
                  of final regulations under Section 401(a)(9) or such other
                  date specified in guidance published by the Internal Revenue
                  Service.

                  3. Any inconsistent provisions of the Plan shall be read
                     consistent with this amendment.


                                     Page 1
<PAGE>
                  4. Except as amended above, the Company hereby affirms and
                     readopts each and every other provision of the Plan.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed on the date
first set forth above.

                                                  General Communication, Inc.


                                                  By: /s/
                                                      President

ATTEST:

By: /s/
    Secretary

                                     Page 2
### [§41912. Renumbered §41908]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9473 

To authorize private enforcement of immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize private enforcement of immigration laws, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Sanctuary City Ac5 countability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

7 Title I of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new section: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9473 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 107. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any individual who is a national 

3 of the United States may bring a civil action in an appro4 priate district court of the United States against a sanc5 tuary jurisdiction in which an alien was located if that 

6 alien commits a crime against that individual, or an imme7 diate family member of that individual, in the sanctuary 

8 jurisdiction, or in any other jurisdiction to which the alien 

9 later relocates, for such injunctive relief or compensatory 

10 damages as may be appropriate. 

11 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—A unit of local gov12 ernment may not be held liable under this section for en13 forcing or implementing a law, ordinance, regulation, reso14 lution, policy, or other practice imposed by the State in 

15 which the unit of local government is located. 

16 ‘‘(c) SANCTUARY JURISDICTION DEFINED.—In this 

17 section, the term ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ means any State 

18 or unit of local government that has laws, ordinances, reg19 ulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that ob20 struct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from 

21 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including 

22 by— 

23 ‘‘(1) refusing to or prohibiting agencies from 

24 complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs En25 forcement detainers; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9473 IH

1 ‘‘(2) imposing unreasonable conditions on U.S. 

2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer 

3 compliance; 

4 ‘‘(3) denying U.S. Immigration and Customs 

5 Enforcement access to interview incarcerated aliens; 

6 or 

7 ‘‘(4) otherwise impeding communication or in8 formation exchanges between the jurisdiction’s per9 sonnel and Federal immigration officers.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7**  **212**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHNNY JAMES

- FRANKLIN DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 7:0 1

- cr - 00 062

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Johnny James

- Franklin Davis , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnny James

- Franklin Davis appeals the district
court ’ s order granting relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
. United States v. Davis , No. 7:01

- cr - 00062

- F

- 1 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2009) . 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.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 81525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27671]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Request for Information: Interdisciplinary Frontiers of 
Understanding the Brain

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation seeks public input on new 
scientific opportunities at the interface of neuroscience and other 
science and engineering disciplines.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted no later than March 31, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments via web form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LQBPS6S. Email comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11736370787f3c77637e7f6578746362517f62773f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f69484979f98db90849998829f938485b6988590d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>. Send written submissions to Dr. Edda Thiels, 
Division of Integrative and Organismal Systems, National Science 
Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Edda Thiels at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff9d8d9e9691d2998d90918b969a8d8cbf918c99d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731101121a1d5e15011c1d071a160100331d00155d141c05">[email protected]</span></a> or (703) 292-8167.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exciting new opportunities at the interface 
of neuroscience and other science and engineering disciplines, 
catalyzed by transformative new discoveries and technologies, are 
poised to reshape brain research and its applications. Advances at 
these interdisciplinary frontiers depend on dialogue across many areas 
of scholarship, including behavioral, biological, cognitive, computing, 
educational, engineering, mathematical, and physical sciences research, 
as well as fields and subfields that have not traditionally been linked 
to neuroscience. The National Science Foundation seeks community input 
that illuminates these interdisciplinary opportunities, from theory to 
applications, and points to how they might best be realized.
    Further information and instructions to submitters may be found at 
https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf21031 (NSF 21-
31).

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1861.)

    Dated: December 11, 2020.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2020-27671 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Charles R. Lachman, Appellant, v Rita de Wolfe Lachman, Respondent.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 26, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, and plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment granted to the extent hereinafter set forth, with $60 costs and disbursements payable by respondent to appellant, and otherwise affirmed. The principal sum of $100,000 in the note given by defendant to plaintiff was satisfied by setoff against an obligation in the same amount. Only interest at 7%, the rate stated in the instrument, remains to be paid, covering the period from the note’s date, May 12, 1976 to the date of demand for payment, August 3, 1977, with interest thereafter to the date of setoff, December 31, 1977 to be calculated at 6%. The defense sought to be interposed of an oral agreement of forebearance of the obligation is not available to defendant. Not alone is it barred by the parol evidence rule, but there is no evidence to sustain the factual pattern claimed by defendant as indicating that forebearance. There being no factual issue to be decided, plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Concur—Evans, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ROBERT ANDERSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50146

D.C. No. 2:00-cr-01079-ABC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Robert Anderson appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 Anderson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the district

court’s determination that he violated a condition of his supervised release

FILED

JUL 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50146

requiring him to abstain from abusing alcohol. The record reflects that the district

court properly concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Anderson

violated this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Perez,

526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that in order to satisfy the preponderance

standard, there must be credible evidence that the releasee violated the terms of

supervised release). 

Anderson’s due process claim is unpersuasive as there is no indication that

the district court retroactively modified the “abuse” condition to prohibit all

alcohol use. See United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2008)

(requiring this court to examine the findings to insure that a defendant’s due

process right to notice of prohibited conduct has been observed to protect him from

unknowing violations). 

Anderson’s motion to clarify this court’s previous order granting expedited

briefing is denied.

AFFIRMED.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T19:09:58-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
<PAGE>
                                  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 Ultra Petroleum Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D.
Watford, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities 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.


Date:   July 28, 2004                  By: /s/ Michael D. Watford
      ------------------                   --------------------------------
                                           Michael D. Watford
                                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and President

This certification is being furnished solely for purposes of compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit
by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Ultra Petroleum Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Petroleum Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### WASSERMAN, Respondent, v. RICHARDS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Benoit Wasserman against Eugene Lamb Richards, Jr., and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```
**EXHIBIT 10

                                         NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                                           AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                                         ----------------------------------
                                                 MATERIAL CONTRACTS**

The following documents of Navistar International Corporation are filed herewith.

                                                                                                  Form 10-Q Page

       10.35*  Board  of  Directors  resolution  approving  an  increase  in  the  additional           E-7
               retainer  paid  to the  audit  committee  members  and to  the  chairs  of the
               committees.

=================
*    Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement  required to be filed as an exhibit to this
report pursuant to Item 14(c).

                                                        E-6
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 64260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8509]

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice

Closed Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on November 19, 20, and 
21, 2013. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed 
to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate 
security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion 
of trade secrets and proprietary commercial information that is 
privileged and confidential, and will discuss law enforcement 
investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include 
updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters 
relating to private sector security policies and protective programs 
and the protection of U.S. business information overseas.
    For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: 571-345-2214.

    Dated: October 17, 2013.
Gregory B. Starr,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-25407 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SELVIN OM AR QUINTANILLA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73899 Age n c y No. A070-781-256 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2014 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, SILVER M AN, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Se lvin Om ar Quinta

nilla , a native and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of



# FIL ED JAN 23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 1 - 7 3 8 9 9re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e fa c tua l findings, IN

S v . Elias-Zac a r ias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Quinta n illa did not suffe r pa st pe rse c ution a

n d doe s not ha

ve a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c o unt of a

n a c tua l or im

pute d politic a l opinion. Se eid. at 482-83; se ealso N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C i r. 2003) (pe titione r’ s fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s spe c u l ative ). Ac c ordingly , Quinta nilla ’ s a sy lum c la i m

fa ils. B e c a use Quinta

nilla fa ile d to m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , it follows tha

t he ha s not m e t the highe r sta nda rd for withholding of re

m ova l. Se e Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C i r. 2006). Quinta n illa doe s not m ak e any

argum e nts re ga

rding thea ge n c y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. Se eMartine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d wa ive d). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 3 8 9 9 2
Press Release
Source: Odd Job Stores, Inc.

ODD JOB STORES ANNOUNCES PHIL CARTER, FORMER CLOSEOUT EXECUTIVE,
ADDED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Monday December 9, 5:23 pm ET

SOUTH PLAINFIELD, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 9, 2002--Odd Job Stores, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ODDJ - News), a closeout retail chain operating 77 stores in 8 states
today announced the addition of Phil Carter to its Board of Directors.

Steve Furner, Odd Job's interim Chief Executive Officer, commented, "The
Company and its Board of Directors are extremely pleased to add Mr. Carter
as a Board Member. His experience in the closeout retail industry will be
invaluable in helping management develop strategic plans to improve
profitability and growth of the Company."

Mr. Carter's background includes being President and Chief Executive Officer
of Mac Frugal's Bargain Centers from 1995 to 1998. Under his leadership,
Mac Frugal's significantly improved its profitability and increased its stock
price. Since Mac Frugal's, Mr. Carter was CEO of Apria Healthcare and has
recently accepted the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of
Rotech Healthcare.

Odd Job Stores, Inc. is a major closeout retailer operating stores in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan
under the names "Odd Job", "Odd Job Trading", and "Mazel's". The Company
changed its corporate name to "Odd Job Stores, Inc." in June of this year and
will change the name of its 12 stores operating under the Mazel name over the
next several years. Company information is available on the Internet at
www.oddjobstores.com.

Forward-looking statements in this release are made pursuant to the safe harbor
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such
forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Such risks
and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, (i) the Company's continuing
execution of its plan to restore its retail stores to profitability; (ii) the
ability to purchase sufficient quality closeout and other merchandise at
acceptable terms; and (iii) the ability of the Company to attract and retain
qualified management and store personnel. Please refer to the Company's SEC
filings for further information.

Contact:
     Mazel Stores, Inc.
     Ed Cornell, 908/222-1000, ext. 285