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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2274 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2274

 To establish a language arts facility for Homeland Security personnel 
                     and law enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 10 (legislative day, February 9), 2006

 Mr. Domenici introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a language arts facility for Homeland Security personnel 
                     and law enforcement officers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Language Training Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act--
            (1) the term ``executive agency'' has the same meaning as 
        in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, except that the 
        term does not include the Department of Defense;
            (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' has the same 
        meaning as in section 8331 of title 5, United States Code; and
            (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
        Security.

SEC. 3. LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM AND FACILITY.

    (a) Program Expansion.--The Secretary shall expand the language 
arts program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, 
New Mexico, to provide training for the Department of Homeland Security 
personnel and law enforcement officers identified under section 4.
    (b) Facility.--The Secretary is authorized to construct a language 
arts facility at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in 
Artesia, New Mexico.

SEC. 4. TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

    (a) Homeland Security.--The Secretary shall--
            (1) identify any employee of the Department of Homeland 
        Security for whom foreign language education is necessary; and
            (2) require foreign language education for any employee 
        identified under paragraph (1).
    (b) Law Enforcement.--The head of each executive agency shall--
            (1) identify any law enforcement officer employed by such 
        executive agency for whom foreign language education is 
        necessary; and
            (2) require foreign language education for any law 
        enforcement officer identified under paragraph (1).
    (c) Training.--Foreign language education for any individual 
identified under subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1) shall be provided at the 
language arts facility authorized under section 3(b).

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 3300.61 Testing and verification requirements. In accordance with ATP, Annex 1, Appendix 1, paragraphs 1, 1(a), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 3, and Appendix 2, paragraph 41, certification of new equipment is based upon the following: ( a ) For a unit of equipment, a test of the equipment in an approved testing station.
( b ) For serially-produced equipment: ( 1 ) A test of one unit of equipment in an approved testing station, such unit to serve as the reference equipment.
( 2 ) Verification that production of other units of equipment is in conformity with the reference equipment.
( c ) For mechanically refrigerated equipment, certification may be based upon a separate test of the mechanical refrigerating appliance and a separate test of the insulated body.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2338 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2338

  To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and 
expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the 
                         processing of permits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2006

 Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Wyden) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and 
expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the 
                         processing of permits.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

    Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-541; 33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended by striking 
``March 31, 2006'' and inserting ``December 31, 2006''.
                                 <all>
```
NO. SCAD-12-0000608

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

JOAN PALMER DAVIS, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 12-025-9041)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.,

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Reifurth,

assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice

to Respondent Joan P. Davis, the memorandum, affidavit, and

exhibits appended thereto, the materials submitted by Respondent

Davis on September 20, 2012, and the record, it appears the

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia disbarred Respondent Davis

from the practice of law in that state on February 27, 2012; this

court, on July 30, 2012, issued a notice and order requiring

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-12-0000608

12-OCT-2012

08:38 AM
Respondent Davis, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), to show cause

within 30 days of the service of the order as to why the same or

substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the

State of Hawai#i and, in her response, Respondent Davis did not

establish any of the four grounds available under RSCH Rule

2.15(c)(1) – (4) to avoid reciprocal discipline in this

jurisdiction. It further appears Respondent Davis neglected

client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with clients,

failed to properly withdraw from representation, made false

statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary

matter, and engaged in professional conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, thereby violating the Hawai#i

Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16,

8.1(b), and 8.4(d). Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c),

that Respondent Davis is disbarred from the practice of law in

the State of Hawai#i, effective thirty days after the date of

entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Davis shall pay

all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission 

2
of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as

prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 12, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Lawrence M. Reifurth 

3
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Sang Park, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Sang Park                        
|Sang Park                            
|Chief Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 31.2

SHANGHAI CENTURY ACQUISITION CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Anthony Kai Yiu Lo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shanghai Century Acquisition
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Anthony Kai Yiu LoAnthony Kai Yiu LoPrincipal financial officerNovember 16, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 19-0482 

__________________________________________________________________ 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 

 Plaintiff and Appellee, 

 v. 

TRESTIN J. ADDISON, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion to dismiss, and good 

cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s motion is GRANTED 

and this matter is DISMISSED. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2020

10/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0482
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ronald Spinney, Appellant, v. Walter J. Flood, as Warden of the Nassau County Jail, et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 1, 1966, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, affirmed, without costs. Presumably, the board of parole will, if it has not already done so, follow the administrative procedure outlined in section 218 of the Correction Law. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### COLTON, Appellant, v. RAYMOND et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Charles W. Colton against Irving E. Raymond and others. L. L. Delafield, for appellant. W. B. Hornblower, for respondents,

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of the court below. 85 N. Y. Supp. 210. Order filed.
§ 3.77 Hearing. ( a ) If an employee timely files a petition for a hearing under § 3.75, USDA will select the time, date, and location for the hearing.
( b ) A hearing will not be held and Federal salary offset will not be pursued if the cost of the hearing is greater than the delinquent debt.
( c ) ( 1 ) Hearings will be conducted by the hearing official designated in accordance with 5 CFR 550.1107; and
( 2 ) Rules of evidence will not be adhered to, but the hearing official will consider all evidence that he or she determines to be relevant to the debt that is the subject of the hearing and weigh it accordingly, given all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the debt.
( d ) USDA will have the burden of going forward to prove the existence of the debt.
( e ) The employee requesting the hearing will bear the ultimate burden of proof.
( f ) The evidence presented by the employee must prove that no debt exists or cast sufficient doubt such that reasonable minds could differ as to the existence of the debt.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

RECEIVED -------------------------------------------

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP *not yet assigned* 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

RESPONSE TO FAA'S REQUESTS TO ADMIT 

GENUINENESS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 

SEP- 4 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Respondent, The Uberty Foundation, Inc. ("TLF"), by and through its 

undersigned attorney, herewith responds to the FAA's Requests To Admit Genuineness 

of Documents (all photographs), and states: 

All of the photographs (22 in number) appear to be photographs of the aluminum 

fuel tank installed in N390TH in February, 2011, and referenced in the log book entry 

dated February 24, 2011: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Response To FAP\s Requests To Admit 

Genuineness of Documents has been served on this 28th day of August, 2012, as set 

forth below: 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A 

9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, 10TH FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305) 670-7065 EMAIL: ST\ IARTGOLDSTEINPA®ATT.NET 
Original and One Copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 

By regular U. S. Mail 

One Copy to: 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

By Facsimile (202) 366-2132 

and regular U. S. Mail 

and 

Adrianne Wojcik, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

By Facsimile (847) 294-7498 

and regular U. S. Mail 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P. A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 1Oth Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 670-7065 

Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net 

By:WA.Jk~ Stuart A. Goldstein 

Attorney for Respondent 

2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALBERTO R. ALGABA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3780

[March 7, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-13378CF10A.

Alberto R. Algaba, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(114 App. Div. 861)

#### PEOPLE ex rel. FORRESTER v. SHERIFF OF NEW YORK COUNTY et al. In re FORRESTER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Cbiminal Law—Insanity at Time of Tbiae—Inquisitions—Commissions— Report—Authobity to Commit to Insane Asyeum.

Code Or. Proe. § 658, providing that where a defendant in confinement under an indictment appears to be insane the court may appoint a commission to examine him as to his sanity, and section 659, providing that where the commission find the defendant insane the court may commit him to a state lunatic asylum, make the jurisdiction of the court to commit to a lunatic asylum one held for crime depend on the commission reporting him insane, and do not authorize a commitment on the report of a commission reciting that the prisoner is not insane but mentally impaired.

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Application for a writ of habeas corpus by the people, on the relation of Josephine Forrester, against the sheriff of the county of New York and others for the discharge of Peter Forrester, an alleged incompetent committed to a state lunatic asylum. From an order dismissing the *194writ of habeas corpus the relator appeals. Reversed, and Peter Forrester discharged from the lunatic asylum, and delivered over to the custody and confinement whence he came.

Peter Forrester being held in confinement under an indictment in the county of New York for grand larceny, the court appointed a commission of three to examine him and report to the court as to his sanity. The commission reported to the court in substance that he was not insane, but mentally impaired. Thereupon the court committed him to a state lunatic asylum.

Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS,' GAYNOR, and MID-LER, JJ.

William Hawkins, for appellant.

Robert S. Johnstone, for respondents.

GAYNOR, J.

Section 658 .of the Code of Criminal Procedure pro-_ vides that if a defendant in confinement under an indictment appears to be “insane” the court may appoint a commission to examine him and report to the court “as to his sanity.” The next section provides that if the commission find the defendant “insane” the trial must be suspended until he become sane, and the court, if it deem his discharge dangerous to the public peace or safety, must commit him to a state lunatic asylum until he become sane.

The jurisdiction of the court to commit the defendant to a lunatic asylum is thus made to depend on the commission reporting him insane. This the commission did not do. Instead of plainly reporting that the defendant was insane or not it wrote what it calls an opinion “per curiam” which leaves the matter referred to them in a state of confusion. ,

The order should be reversed and the defendant discharged from the lunatic asylum and delivered over to the custody and confinement whence he came.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and defendant discharged " from the lunatic asylum, and delivered over to the custody and confinement whence he came. All concur.
Amendment No. 1 to the 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan of Americredit Corp.



 Exhibit No. 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 2008 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 OF 
 AMERICREDIT CORP. 
 Section 15
(a) of the 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan of AmeriCredit Corp. (the “2008 Plan”) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: 
 15. Acceleration on Change in Control.
 (a) Except to the extent limited in subsection
(b), in the event of a change in control of the Company (as hereafter defined) all Awards shall become fully exercisable, nonforfeitable, or the Restricted Period shall terminate, as the case may be (hereafter, in this Section 15, such
Award shall be “accelerated”). As used herein, the term “change in control of the Company” shall be deemed to have occurred (i) on the date that any one person, or more than one person acting as a group, acquires ownership
of stock of the Parent that, together with stock held by such person or group, constitutes more than 50% of the total fair market value or total voting power of the stock of the Parent, (ii) on the date that a majority of the members of the
Parent’s Board is replaced during any 12-month period by directors whose appointment or election is not endorsed by a majority of the members of the Parent’s Board prior to the date of the appointment or election or (iii) on the date
any one person, or more than one person acting as a group acquires (or has acquired during the 12-month period ending on the date of the most recent acquisition by such person or persons) assets from the Parent that have a total gross fair market
value equal to or more than 40% of the total gross fair market value of all the assets of the Parent immediately prior to such acquisition or acquisitions. 
 This Amendment No. 1 to the 2008 Plan is executed and effective this 28th day of April, 2009, pursuant to approval and authorization by the Board of Directors. 
  

	
	
	
	/s/ J. Michael May
	 J. Michael May, Executive Vice President,
 Chief Legal
Officer and Secretary