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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 919 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective date of 

high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2017 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the 

effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

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 ‘‘Require EValuation 

5 before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2017’’ or 

6 the ‘‘REVIEW Act of 2017’’. 

7 SEC. 2. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW. 

8 Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 919 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—When’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(b) HIGH-IMPACT RULES.— 

6 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

7 ‘‘(A) the term ‘Administrator’ means the 

8 Administrator of the Office of Information and 

9 Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management 

10 and Budget; and 

11 ‘‘(B) the term ‘high-impact rule’ means 

12 any rule that the Administrator determines may 

13 impose an annual cost on the economy of not 

14 less than $1,000,000,000. 

15 ‘‘(2) IDENTIFICATION.—A final rule may not be 

16 published or take effect until— 

17 ‘‘(A) the agency making the rule submits 

18 the rule to the Administrator; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the Administrator makes a deter20 mination as to whether the rule is a high-im21 pact rule, which shall be published by the agen22 cy with the final rule. 

23 ‘‘(3) RELIEF.— 

24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

25 subparagraph (B), an agency shall postpone the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 919 IS

1 effective date of a high-impact rule of the agen2 cy until the final disposition of all actions seek3 ing judicial review of the rule. 

4 ‘‘(B) FAILURE TO TIMELY SEEK JUDICIAL

5 REVIEW.—Notwithstanding section 553(d), if 

6 no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact 

7 rule— 

8 ‘‘(i) during any period explicitly pro9 vided for judicial review under the statute 

10 authorizing the making of the rule; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) if no such period is explicitly pro12 vided for, during the 60-day period begin13 ning on the date on which the high-impact 

14 rule is published in the Federal Register, 

15 the high-impact rule may take effect as early as 

16 the date on which the applicable period ends. 

17 ‘‘(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

18 this subsection may be construed to impose any limi19 tation under law on any court against the issuance 

20 of any order enjoining the implementation of any 

21 rule.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19


                         NON-RECOURSE PROMISSORY NOTE
                         ----------------------------


$500,000                                              San Francisco, California
                                                                October 6, 1999

     For value received, the undersigned promises to pay Aeneid Corporation, a
California corporation (the "Company"), at its principal office the principal
                             -------
sum of $500,000, together with interest on the sum of the outstanding principal
balance, plus accrued but unpaid interest, at the rate of 5.41% per annum,
compounded monthly. Such principal and interest shall be due and payable on
October 6, 2002.

     Principal and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of
America. AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THIS NOTE MAY BE PREPAID AT ANY TIME WITHOUT INTEREST
OR PENALTY.

     Should suit be commenced to collect any sums due under this Note, such sum
as the Court may deem reasonable shall be added hereto as attorneys' fees. The
makers and endorsers have severally waived presentment for payment, protest,
notice of protest, and notice of nonpayment of this Note.

     This Note, which is non-recourse, is secured by a pledge of certain shares
of Common Stock of the Company owned by the undersigned and is subject to the
terms of a Pledge and Security Agreement between the undersigned and the Company
of even date herewith.

     THIS NOTE IS NON-RECOURSE TO THE UNDERSIGNED. The Company shall look solely
to any collateral securing this Note for payment of any unpaid amounts due under
this Note, whether or not the value of such collateral is sufficient to
liquidate the entire amount due. The Company shall have no claim against the
undersigned for payment of any amount due under this Note other than to the
extent of the interest of the undersigned in the collateral securing this Note
in accordance with the aforementioned Pledge and Security Agreement.

     In the event that any one or more provisions of this Note shall be held to
be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable, the same shall not affect any
other provision of this Note, and the remaining provisions of this Note shall
remain in full force and effect.

     This Note shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws
of the State of California without regard to conflicts of laws principles.

                                    /s/ David Putterman
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Daniel Putterman
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 55 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state 

of the remains of the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2018 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the 

lying in state of the remains of the late George Herbert 

Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in recognition of the long and distin3 guished service rendered to the Nation and to the world, 

4 by the late George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st Presi5 dent of the United States, his remains be permitted to 

6 lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol from December 

7 3, 2018 until December 5, 2018, and the Architect of the 

8 Capitol, under the direction of the President pro tempore 

9 of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of RepresentVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:09 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC55.ATS SC55

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 55 ATS 

1 atives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplish2 ment of that purpose. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
| Print photo |
|-------------|

Catherine Lhamon recently served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice and Equity, where she managed the President's equity policy portfolio. Until January 2021, she chaired the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to which President Obama appointed her in 2016, and served as Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Before then, Lhamon was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, to which President Obama nominated her and the Senate confirmed her in 2013. Lhamon has also litigated civil rights cases at National Center for Youth Law, Public Counsel Law Center, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Lhamon taught federal civil rights appeals at Georgetown University Law Center in the Appellate Litigation Program, and clerked for the Honorable William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Born in Virginia and raised in California, Lhamon graduated from Amherst College and Yale Law School. Lhamon, her husband and two teenagers moved from California to Maryland.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Arbor EnTechCorporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the datehereof (the “Report”), Mark Shefts, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                TheAmended Report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                Theinformation in the Amended Report, and the information in the Report, fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| August 12, 2004 | /s/ Mark Shefts    |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 | Mark Shefts             |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL S. SOFIDIYA, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CR-97-21-A, CA-99-1600-AM)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Sofidiya, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen P. Learned,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Sofidiya seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sofidiya, Nos.

CR-97-21-A; CA-99-1600-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
For the latest news and information about career and technical education and adult education, see the "**OCTAE Connection newsletter**" and the **OCTAE Blog**.
#### 2009.470 Appeals.

A debarred or suspended contractor may appeal the debarring/suspending official's decision by mailing or otherwise furnishing a written notice within 90 days from the date of the decision to the Executive Director for Operations. A copy of the notice of appeal must be furnished to the debarring/suspending official.
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of 
Maxtor Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-08181) of our report dated 
February 3, 1998, except for Note 7 and 10 for which the date is April 9, 
1998 which included an emphasis of a matter related to the Company's ultimate 
parent Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd., on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Maxtor Corporation as of 
December 27, 1997 and December 28, 1996 and for the year ended December 27, 
1997 and for the nine month period ended December 28, 1996, which reports are 
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                             COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
April 9, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      53,035,000
<SECURITIES>                                26,863,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              185,730,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,999,000
<INVENTORY>                                 98,758,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           403,440,000
<PP&E>                                     335,834,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             183,704,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             793,179,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      183,135,000
<BONDS>                                     57,336,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 359,567,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               793,179,000
<SALES>                                    224,508,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           228,060,000
<CGS>                                       77,484,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              191,392,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,145,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,668,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,301,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         22,367,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,367,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED
                               PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We have issued our reports dated February 15, 1996 accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedules included in the Annual Report of
Information Resources, Inc. & Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1995. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
reports in the Registration Statements of Information Resources, Inc. on Forms
S-8 (File Nos. 33-48289, 33-48290, 33-48291, 33-52719, 33-52721 and 33-54649).

                                            GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 22, 1996
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert E. Rout, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (First Commonwealth),
certify that the Annual Report of First Commonwealth on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of First Commonwealth at the end of such period and the results of operations of First Commonwealth for such period.



|                     |  |                                                     |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|DATED: March 1, 2010 |  | /s/ Robert E. Rout                                  |  | 
|                     |  | Robert E. Rout                                      |  | 
|                     |  | Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer |  |
#### 1315.305 Proposal evaluation.

At the discretion of the contracting officer, cost information may be provided to members of the technical evaluation team.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                             455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      935
<ALLOWANCES>                                       131
<INVENTORY>                                       1014
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2462
<PP&E>                                            3890
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1087
<OTHER-SE>                                       (5729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2939
<SALES>                                           1839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1839
<CGS>                                             1620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (199)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
216.401-71 Objective criteria. ( 1 ) Contracting officers shall use objective criteria to the maximum extent possible to measure contract performance. Objective criteria are associated with cost-plus-incentive-fee and fixed-price-incentive contracts.
( 2 ) When objective criteria exist but the contracting officer determines that it is in the best interest of the Government also to incentivize subjective elements of performance, the most appropriate contract type is a multiple-incentive contract containing both objective incentives and subjective award-fee criteria (i.e., cost-plus-incentive-fee/award-fee or fixed-price-incentive/award-fee).
( 3 ) See PGI 216.401(e) for guidance on the use of award-fee contracts.
[76 FR 8305, Feb. 14, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,125                   2,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,324                   3,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                       147                     128
<INVENTORY>                                      2,989                   2,650
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,069                   9,601
<PP&E>                                           2,144                   2,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,707                   1,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,763                  10,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,484                   4,096
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            99                     103
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,076                   5,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,763                  10,246
<SALES>                                         22,708                  23,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,708                  23,525
<CGS>                                           14,156                  13,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,297                   7,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (55)                      72
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19                      59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40                     118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,337                   2,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                       535                   (573)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                802                   2,775
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       802                   2,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                     .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08                     .27
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No, 11 CR 750
Vv.
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
SAUL MELERO, et al.

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING COMMUNICATIONS WITH INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL REGARDING POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Upon the agreed motion of the government, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. As set forth in the motion for a protective order and as set forth in docket
entry 49 in the above-captioned case, this Court has ordered each defendant to separately
confer about any potential conflict of interest related to the fact that the defendants are
represented by attorneys who are associated in the practice of law. The appointment of
the independent attorneys shall be arranged by the Federal Defender Program.

2. No member of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District
of Illinois shall communicate with the independent attorneys appointed to confer with the
defendants regarding the substance of their communications with the defendants about the
potential conflict of interest.

3. This protective order shall not prevent the Assistant United States Attorney
handling this prosecution, or another Assistant United States Attorney, from attending any
future court hearing regarding any potential conflict of interest associated with such joint

representation.



4. Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party from applying to
this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

ENTER:

ROBERT M. DOW, JR.
District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois

Date: Jal 24, dole
222.406-10 Disposition of disputes concerning construction contract labor standards enforcement. ( d ) Forward the contracting officer's findings and the contractor's statement through the labor advisor.