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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2293 

To authorize a military construction project for the construction of an advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. FRIST, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. 

HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize a military construction project for the construction of an advanced training skills facility at Brooke 

Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUC4 TION PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 

5 TRAINING SKILLS FACILITY. 

6 (a) MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AUTHOR7 IZED.—The Secretary of Defense may carry out a military 

8 construction project for the construction of an advanced 

9 training skills facility at Brooke Army Medical Facility, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 2293 IS

1 San Antonio, Texas, for the purpose of serving severely 

2 injured military personnel. 

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

4 authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2007 for mili5 tary construction of the Department of Defense 

6 $5,500,000 to defray the cost of the military construction 

7 project authorized by subsection (a). Such amount is in 

8 addition to any other amounts authorized to be appro9 priated for fiscal year 2007 for military construction of 

10 the Department of Defense. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10-kk 
  
 Summary of 
 Compensation Arrangements for 
 Certain Named Executive Officers 
  
 Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the
“Company”) to the four executive officers to be named in the Company’s 2005 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”). Each of these executive officers is an employee at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors.

  
 Base Salaries. Effective January 31, 2005, these executive officers
will receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below: 
  

				
	 Name and Position

	  	2005 Base Salary Amount


	 Thomas E. Linnen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	325,000
		
	 John A. Kauffmann, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  	$	300,000
		
	 Shaker Sadasivam, Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	  	$	300,000
		
	 David L. Fleisher, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	$	242,000

  
 The Compensation Committee will adjust
these base salaries from time to time as the Committee deems appropriate, generally annually. 
  
 Incentive Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans. Such plans, and any forms of awards
thereunder providing for material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K. 
  
 Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the MEMC Pension Plan on the same terms as the Company’s other covered employees. Because he commenced employment after December 31, 2001, Mr. Linnen is
not covered by the Pension Plan. 
  
 Relocation Payments. From time to time
the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
#### Jeanne A. Weintraub, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Mark Weintraub, an Infant, Appellant, v First National City Bank et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Harter, Secrest & Emery, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Jeanne A. Weintraub, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Mark Wein*985traub, an Infant, Appellant v Harter, Secrest & Emery et al., Respondents.

and judgments unanimously affirmed, without costs. (Appeals from order and judgments of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### BOYER, Respondent, v. BOYER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 5, 1906.)

Action by Cather¡ne against Frank W. Boyer.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed by default, with costs.
#### § 301.85-10 Nonliability of the Department.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture disclaims liability for any costs incident to inspections or compliance with the provisions of the quarantine and regulations in this subpart, other than for the services of the inspector.
#### In re SCHROEDER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

In the matter of Carrie B. Schroeder, etc.

No opinion. Motion for resettlement denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc.(“Bidz.com”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Bidz.com.

 

 
| Date:  | May 6, 2008 | By                      | /s/ David Zinberg |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------|-------------------|
|   |             | David Zinberg           |
|   |             | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |             |                    |
| Date:  | May 6, 2008 | By                      | /s/ Lawrence Kong |
|   |             | Lawrence Kong           |
|   |             | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
§ 3201.32 Dust suppressants. ( a ) *Definition.* Products formulated to reduce or eliminate the spread of dust associated with gravel roads, dirt parking lots, or similar sources of dust, including products used in equivalent indoor applications.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a biobased content of at least 85 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to be diluted before use, the biobased content of the suppressant must be determined before dilution.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than May 14, 2009, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased dust suppressants. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased dust suppressants.
[73 FR 27973, May 14, 2008]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ LAWRENCE M. JIRON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JARED POLIS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 19-2187 (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00791-RB-CG) (D.N.M.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , KELLY , and EID , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Jiron, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Proce dure 12(b)(2) for lack of pers onal jurisdiction. Jiron v. Polis, No. 1:19-cv-00791-RB- CG, Mem. Op. and Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 8) (D.N.M. Oct. 28, 2019). The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to its screening function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), reasoning

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 16, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 that although lack of jurisdiction is an affirmative defense a nd does not appear as grounds for dismissal under § 1915A(b), di smissal is proper where the affirmative defense clearly appears on the face of the complaint and no further factual development is necessary Mr. Jiron’s complaint soug ht relief on various claims , including copyright and trademark infringement, fals e imprisonment a nd kidnapping, and ultimately asking the Colorado Secretary of State to release him. See Polis, No. 1:19-cv-00791-RB-CG (ECF No. 1). On appeal, he repeatedly ur ges that “an attorney follow the complaint.” We review a district court’s dismissa l for lack of jurisdiction de novo. ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F. 3d 735, 763 (10th Ci r. 2011). We find no substantive grounds for this appeal or any of Mr. Jir on’s outstanding motions. For the reasons it articulated, the district court was co rrect in ruling that Mr. Jiron has not established personal jurisdic tion over the defendant. We DENY Mr. Jiron’s motion to pro ceed in forma pauperis because his appeal is frivolous, DENY all other moti ons, and DISMISS the appeal. Mr. Jiron must pay the full filing fees immediately.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CORNELL DWAYNE JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:19cv3638-RV/HTC

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondents.

/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 6). Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 

and no objections have been filed, I have determined that the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Cornell Dwayne Jackson’s petition (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED

under Habeas Rule 4 because it plainly appears from the petition that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Page 2 of 2

3:19cv3638-RV/HTC

3. The clerk is directed to CLOSE the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2019.

s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
§ 32.402 Samples of mohair top grades; method of obtaining. Samples certified as representative of the official standards of the United States of grades of mohair top will be furnished when available as follows, subject to other conditions for this section, upon filing of an approved application and prepayment of the cost thereof as fixed in § 32.403. The certification will be issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and will be signed by the Director of the Livestock Division or other official duly authorized by him. ( a ) Samples representative of the official grades of mohair top: ( 1 ) *Complete set.* Nine certified samples of mohair top, grades 40s through 20s.
( 2 ) *Individual sample.* Individual certified samples of mohair top, grades 40s through 20s.
( b ) Each application for standard samples of mohair top shall be upon an application form furnished or approved by the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall be signed by the applicant, and shall be accompanied by certified check, draft, postal money order, or express money order, payable to the “Agricultural Marketing Service,” in an amount to cover the cost of the samples requested and shall incorporate the following agreement: ( 1 ) That no samples representative of the official mohair top standards shall be considered or used as representing such standards after cancellation in accordance with this section.
( 2 ) That the said standard samples shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary or by any duly authorized officer or agent of the Department of Agriculture during usual business hours of the person having custody of the samples.
( 3 ) That the certificate covering any of the samples representative of the standards may be revoked and canceled by the Director of the Livestock Division, if it is found upon such inspection that the said samples are not representative of the official standards.
§ 3201.79 Candles and wax melts. ( a ) *Definition.* Products composed of a solid mass and either an embedded wick that is burned to provide light or aroma, or that are wickless and melt when heated to produce an aroma.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 88 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than April 4, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased candles and wax melts. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased candles and wax melts.
[77 FR 20289, Apr. 4, 2012]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 231 

To reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

Ms. HANABUSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians. 

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 ‘‘Hawaiian Homeowner5 ship Opportunity Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUS7 ING ASSISTANCE. 

8 Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assist9 ance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

10 4243), as added by section 513 of Public Law 106–569 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 231 IH

1 (114 Stat. 2969), is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ 

2 and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘fiscal 

3 years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUS5 ING. 

6 Section 184A of the Housing and Community Devel7 opment Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z–13b), as added by 

8 section 514 of Public Law 106–569 (114 Stat. 2989), is 

9 amended as follows: 

10 (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In 

11 subsection (j)(7), by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ and all 

12 that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘fiscal years 

13 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.’’. 

14 (2) AUTHORITY.—In subsection (b), by striking 

15 ‘‘or as a result of a lack of access to private finan16 cial markets’’. 

17 (3) ELIGIBLE HOUSING.—In subsection (c), by 

18 striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 

19 new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE HOUSING.—The loan will be 

21 used to construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 

22 1- to 4-family dwellings that are standard housing 

23 and are located on Hawaiian Home Lands.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2529 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the 

term ‘‘spouse’’ to recognize new State definitions of such term for the 

purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Ms. TITUS (for herself and Mr. SMITH of Washington) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the term ‘‘spouse’’ to recognize new State definitions of such term for the purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Veteran Spouses Equal 

5 Treatment Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2529 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF VET2 ERAN BENEFITS TO REFLECT NEW STATE 

3 DEFINITIONS OF SPOUSE. 

4 Section 101 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘of the oppo7 site sex’’; and 

8 (2) by striking paragraph (31) and inserting 

9 the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(31) Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, an 

11 individual shall be considered a ‘spouse’ if the mar12 riage of the individual is valid in the State in which 

13 the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a 

14 marriage entered into outside any State, if the mar15 riage is valid in the place in which the marriage was 

16 entered into and the marriage could have been en17 tered into in a State. In this paragraph, the term 

18 ‘State’ has the meaning given that term in para19 graph (20), except that the term also includes the 

20 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry S. Hedlund, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a hearing. Memorandum: The petition presents factual allegations which should be developed upon a hearing. (See *People*v. *Picciotti,*4 N Y 2d 340.) (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for burglary, third, rendered December 29,1964.) Present—-Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.
§ 254.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Exercises governmental jurisdiction* means the exercise of authorities granted to ITOs under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 or by BIA regulations (25 CFR part 81 et. seq.).
( b ) *FNS service area* means the areas over which FNS has approved the food distribution program in Oklahoma, excluding urban places unless approved by FNS under 254.5(b).
( c ) *Food Distribution Program* means a food distribution program for households on Indian reservations administered pursuant to section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act and 1304(a) of Pub. L. 97-98.
( d ) *Indian tribal household* means a household in which at least one household member is recognized as a tribal member by any Indian tribe, as defined in § 253.2(d) of this title.
( e ) *Indian tribal organization (ITO)* means ( 1 ) any Indian tribe, band, or group organized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, and which has a tribal organization approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
( 2 ) a tribal organization established and approved under Federal regulations issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; or
( 3 ) an intertribal council authorized by eligible tribes to act in behalf of the tribes to operate the program.
( f ) *Overissuance* means the dollar value of commodities issued to a household that exceeds the dollar value of commodities it was eligible to receive.
( g ) *State agency* means the ITO of an Indian tribe, determined by the Department to be capable of effectively administering a Food Distribution Program, or an agency of State government, which enters into an agreement with FNS for the distribution of commodities on an Indian reservation.
( h ) *Urban place* means a town or city with a population of 10,000 or more.
[49 FR 32756, Aug. 16, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 1449, Jan. 11, 1994; 64 FR 73385, Dec. 30, 1999]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RODNEY RAMIREZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00076-CR

Appeal from

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 59793 (900D08595))

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
§ 32.403 Cost of samples for mohair top grades. ( a ) *Complete set.* Twenty-seven dollars each, delivered to any destination within the United States and $30 each, delivered to any destination outside the United States.
( b ) *Individual sample.* Three dollars each, delivered to any destination within the United States, and $3.50 each, delivered to any destination outside the United States.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Stamatis V. Molaris, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited. 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By: /s/ Stamatis V. Molaris             Stamatis V. Molaris      Chief Executive Officer  Date:August 9, 2006