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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2080 

To provide for the admission to the United States of certain Tibetans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2013 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the admission to the United States of certain 

Tibetans. 

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 ‘‘Tibetan Refugee As5 sistance Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSITION FOR DISPLACED TIBETANS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the numerical 

8 limitations specified in sections 201 and 202 of the Immi9 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1152), 

10 there shall be made available to qualified displaced Tibet11 ans described in subsection (b) of this section 3,000 immiVerDate Mar 15 2010 19:25 May 24, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2080.IH H2080

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2080 IH

1 grant visas in the 3-fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal 

2 year 2014. 

3 (b) QUALIFIED DISPLACED TIBETAN DESCRIBED.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual is a qualified 

5 displaced Tibetan if such individual is an individual 

6 who— 

7 (A) is a native of Tibet; and 

8 (B) since before the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act, has been continuously residing in 

10 India or Nepal. 

11 (2) NATIVE OF TIBET DESCRIBED.—For pur12 poses of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), an indi13 vidual shall be considered to be a native of Tibet if 

14 such individual was born in Tibet or is the son, 

15 daughter, grandson, or granddaughter of an indi16 vidual born in Tibet. 

17 (c) DISTRIBUTION OF VISA NUMBERS.—The Sec18 retary of State shall ensure that immigrant visas provided 

19 under subsection (a) are made available to qualified dis20 placed Tibetans described in subsection (b) (or described 

21 in subsection (d) as the spouse or child of such a qualified 

22 displaced Tibetan) in an equitable manner, giving pref23 erence to those qualified displaced Tibetans who are not 

24 resettled in India or Nepal or who are most likely to be 

25 resettled successfully in the United States. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2080 IH

1 (d) DERIVATIVE STATUS FOR SPOUSES AND CHIL2 DREN.—A spouse or child (as defined in subparagraphs 

3 (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1))) 

5 shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and 

6 the immediate issuance of a visa under this section, be 

7 entitled to the same status, and the same order of consid8 eration, provided under this section, if accompanying, or 

9 following to join, the spouse or parent of such spouse or 

10 child. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerard E. Puorro, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
| /s/ GERARD E. PUORRO      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Gerard E. Puorro          |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| September 12, 2007        |   |

 

----
(April 15, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York v. Heriberto Cabrera.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted as being abandoned. (Code Crim. Pro., § 535.) Concur—- Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.688 Grant evaluation, closeout, suspension, and termination. ( a ) Grant evaluation will be an on-going activity performed by both the grantee and Rural Development. The grantee will perform self-evaluations by preparing quarterly performance reports in accordance with § 1944.683 of this subpart. Rural Development will also review all reports prepared and submitted by the grantee in accordance with the grant agreement and this subpart.
( b ) The grant can be suspended or terminated before the grant ending date for the causes specified in the grant agreement. No further grant funds will be advanced when grant suspension or termination procedures have been initiated in accordance with the grant agreement. Grantees may be reimbursed for eligible costs incurred prior to the effective date of the suspension or termination. Grantees are prohibited from incurring additional obligations of funds after notification, pending corrective action by the grantee. Rural Development may allow necessary and proper costs that the grantee could not reasonably avoid during the period of suspension provided they are for eligible HPG purposes. In the event of termination, Rural Development may allow necessary and reasonable costs for an audit.
( c ) Grantees will have the opportunity to appeal a suspension or termination under Rural Development's appeal procedures under subpart B of part 1900 of this chapter.
( d ) The grantee will complete the closeout procedures as specified in the grant agreement.
( e ) The grantee will have an audit performed upon termination or completion of the project in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, as applicable. As part of its final report, the grantee will address and resolve all audit findings.
[58 FR 21894, Apr. 26, 1993, as amended at 79 FR 76011, Dec. 19, 2014]
97-1111.

#### State v. Stojetz.

Madison C.P. No. 96CR10086. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Madison County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for expedited release of evidence,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for expedited release of evidence be, and hereby is, granted, and the Clerk’s Office is authorized to release State’s Exhibit 55 to Sgt. Downey of the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
#### The State ex rel. Singer, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Singer v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 548.]

(No. 98-266

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*Fell, Marcus & Koder Co., L.P.A.,*and *George N. Fell II,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, *Mark S. Barnes*and *Réeve W. Kelsey,*Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission for compliance with *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.421-1980.422 [Reserved]
ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.




	
Exhibit 10.12(b)







AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made by and between EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Company”),
and JAMES B. REAM (“Executive”). 


W I T N E S S E T H:





            WHEREAS, Company and Executive and Continental
Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Continental”) previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated
as of April 17, 2002 and amended as of April 24, 2002 (the “Agreement”), setting forth the terms of Executive's
employment with Company;


            WHEREAS, the parties now desire to modify the
Agreement with this Amendment, effective as of April 1, 2005 (the “Effective Date”); and


            WHEREAS, this Amendment does not affect the rights or
duties of Continental, and the approval of Continental is not required with respect to this Amendment;


            NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
promises, covenants and obligations contained herein, Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:


            1.        
Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms
in the Agreement.


            2.         The first
sentence of Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


            “During the period of this Agreement, Executive shall
receive a minimum annual base salary equal to the greater of (i) $320,000.00 or (ii) such amount as Company and Executive mutually
may agree upon from time to time.”


            3.        
Continuing Effectiveness of Agreement.   Except as expressly provided herein to the contrary, the Agreement shall
remain unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect after the date hereof.


            4.        
Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Amendment on any number of separate
counterparts (including counterparts delivered by telecopy), and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to
constitute one and the same instrument.  Any such counterpart delivered by telecopy shall be effective as an original for all
purposes. 












            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Amendment as of the 14th day of March, 2005, to be effective as of the Effective Date.



	
       

	

                                                     

	
ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.





 By: /s/ Scott R.
Peterson                             


 Scott R. Peterson

 Vice President and General Counsel


	
 

	
 

	
    


	
 

	
 

	
“Executive”





 By: /s/ James B.
Ream                                


 James B. Ream
§ 1786.35 Loss, theft, destruction, mutilation, or defacement of RUS guarantee. ( a ) *Authorized representative.* Except where the evidence of debt was or is a bearer instrument, the RUS Administrator is authorized on behalf of RUS to issue a replacement guarantee(s) for one(s) which may have been lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated, or defaced. Such replacement(s) shall be issued only to the lender or holder and only upon receipt of an acceptable certificate of loss and an indemnity bond.
( b ) *Requirements.* When a guarantee(s) is lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated, or defaced while in the custody of the lender, or holder, the lender will coordinate the activities of the party who seeks the replacement documents and will submit the required documents to RUS for processing. The requirements for replacement are as follows: ( 1 ) A certificate of loss properly notarized which includes: ( i ) Legal name and present address of the owner, requesting the replacement forms;
( ii ) Legal name and address of lender of record;
( iii ) Capacity of person certifying;
( iv ) Full identification of the guarantee, including the name of the borrower, date of the guarantee, face amount of the evidence of debt purchased, date of evidence of debt and present balance of the loan. Any existing parts of the documents to be replaced should be attached to the certificate;
( v ) A full statement of circumstances of the loss, theft, or destruction of the guarantee; and
( vi ) The lender or holder, shall present evidence demonstrating current ownership of the guarantee and note. If the present holder is not the same as the original lender, a copy of the endorsement of each successive holder in the chain of transfer from the initial private lender to present holder shall be included. If copies of the endorsement cannot be obtained, best available records of transfer shall be presented to RUS (e.g., order confirmation, cancelled checks, etc).
( 2 ) An indemnity bond acceptable to RUS shall accompany the request for replacement except when the holder is the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank, a Federal Government Corporation, a state or territory, or the District of Columbia. The bond may be with or without surety. The bond shall be with surety except when the outstanding principal balance and accrued interest due the present holder is less than $1,000,000 verified by the lender in writing in a letter of certification of balance due. The surety shall be a qualified surety company holding a certificate of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury and listed in Treasury Department Circular 580.
( 3 ) All indemnity bonds shall be issued and/or payable to the United States of America acting through the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service. The bond shall be in an amount not less than the unpaid principal and interest. The bond shall save RUS harmless against any claim or demand which might arise or against any damage, loss, costs, or expenses which might be sustained or incurred by reasons of the loss or replacement of the instruments.
## Breadcrumb

-  Justice.gov 
-  Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the U.S. 
-  Publications 

# Publications

                      -  Facebook 
                      -  X 
                      -  LinkedIn 
                      -  Email 

## FCSC Annual Reports

                      -  2022 
                      -  2021 
                      - 2020
                      - 2019
                      - 2018
                      - 2017
                      - 2016
                      - 2015
                      - 2014
                      - 2013
                      - 2012
                      - 2011
                      - 2010
                      - 2009
                      - 2008

*Further information on the Commission's activities may be found in the FCSC's Annual Reports and Yearbooks on the Commission's Archive page*

## **Commission Claims Programs Final Reports**

Cuba Claims Program  (PDF)
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3690 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3690 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.12 Acquisition of property which served as security for a loan guarantee by Rural Development or at sale by another lienholder, bankruptcy trustee, or taxing authority.

When the servicing regulations for the type of loan(s) involved permit Rural Development to acquire property by one of these methods, the acquisition will be reported in accordance with § 1955.18(a) of this subpart.
§ 1734.45 Application selection provisions. ( a ) Loans will be approved based on availability of funds, the financial feasibility of the project in accordance with § 1734.44(d), the services to be provided which demonstrate that the project meets the general requirements of this subpart, the design of the project; costs; location; and other characteristics of the application.
( b ) RUS will determine, from the information submitted with each application for a loan, whether the application achieves sufficient priority, based on the criteria set forth in the 1996 Act, to receive a loan from funds available for the fiscal year. If such priority is achieved, RUS will process the loan application on a first-in, first-out basis, provided that the total amount of applications on-hand for loans does not exceed 90 percent of the total loan funding available for the fiscal year. At such time as the total amount of applications eligible for loans, if such applications were approved, exceeds 90 percent of amount of loan funding available, RUS will process the remaining applications using the evaluation criteria referenced in § 1734.26.
( c ) A loan will not be approved if it is determined that: ( 1 ) The applicant's proposal does not indicate financial feasibility, or is not adequately secured in accordance with the requirements of § 1734.44(d);
( 2 ) The applicant's proposal indicates technical flaws, which, in the opinion of RUS, would prevent successful implementation, or operation of the project; or
( 3 ) Any other aspect of the applicant's proposal fails to adequately address any requirements of this subpart or contains inadequacies which would, in the opinion of RUS, undermine the ability of the project to meet the general purpose of this subpart or comply with policies of the DLT program contained in § 1734.2.
( d ) RUS will provide the applicant with a statement of any determinations made with regard to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. The applicant will be provided 15 days from the date of the RUS letter to respond, provide clarification, or make any adjustments or corrections to the project. If, in the opinion of the Administrator, the applicant fails to adequately respond to any determinations or other findings made by the Administrator, the loan will not be approved, and the applicant will be notified of this determination. If the applicant does not agree with this finding an appeal may be filed in accordance with § 1734.47.
Appendix H 

Responses to Comments 

(will be submitted after public hearing)
Writ of Mandamus is DENIED; Opinion Filed August 26, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00968-CV

IN RE FLOYD CIRCLE PARTNERS, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-02720-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Myers

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to vacate its orders of May 29, 2015 and July 13, 2015 and order the trial court to permit 

relator to conduct the discovery it seeks. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must 

show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate 

appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). We conclude relator has failed to establish its right to mandamus relief. We deny 

the petition.

150968F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Holland & Knight 

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 I Washington, DC 20006 I T 202.955.3000 I F 202.955.5564 

Holland & Knight LLP I www.hklaw.com 

Anita M. Mosner 

202.419.2604 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com@hklaw.com 

July 27, 2011 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Carrier licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Amended Application of United Parcel Service Co. for an Exemption and Designation: 

Docket OST-2011-0141 

Dear Esta: 

On July 25, United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) submitted an amended application for exemption 

authority and a designation to hold out scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail 

between the United States and Vietnam. 1 

UPS polled all persons served with the Amended Application and hereby inform the Department 

that no party has any objection to the Amended Application. Accordingly, UPS requests that the 

Department grant the Amended Application as soon as possible. 

Since~/V 

I M. Mosner 

Attorney for United Parcel Service Co. 

cc: All parties 

Brett Kruger 

Dorothy Beard 

1 The original application was filed on July 19 and also requested certificate authority. The July 25 

amendment withdrew the request for certificate authority. Carriers were polled with no objections on 

both the original application and the amendment.
**Exhibit 13.1**

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 20-F of China Natural Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wong Wah On Edward, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

/s/ Wong Wah On Edward        

Wong Wah On Edward

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

August 31, 2023
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.81 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart, or address any omission of this subpart which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law, if the Administrator determines that the Government's interest would be adversely affected or the immediate health and/or safety of tenants or the community are endangered if there is no adverse effect on the Government's interest. The Administrator will exercise this authority upon request of the State Director with the recommendation of the appropriate program Assistant Administrator or upon a request initiated by the appropriate program Assistant Administrator. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing and supported with documentation to explain the adverse effect, propose alternative courses of action, and show how the adverse effect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted.

[53 FR 35765, Sept. 14, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 58649, Nov. 3, 1993]
LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, A 

POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

JAN K. SEBASTIAN,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1201

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 25, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen A. Gievers, Judge.

Michael J. Roper and Dale A. Scott of Bell & Roper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See generally, Henderson v. Tandem Health Care of 

Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal 

because order requiring parties to reschedule arbitration did not determine 

entitlement to arbitration, which was made in earlier referral order, “and the trial 

court was not required to make this finding anew”).

ROBERTS, C. J., MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.