alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2292 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 415
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2292

    To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent 
                                charges.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2006

 Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Talent, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Allard) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             April 27, 2006

               Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
    To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent 
                                charges.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF FROM EXCESSIVE RENT CHARGES.

    Section 462 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g) Effective October 1, 2006, rent charges established by the 
Administrator of General Services for accommodations provided to the 
judicial branch shall not exceed the actual costs of operating and 
maintaining such accommodations by the General Services Administration, 
and no amounts for shell rent, capital costs, real estate taxes (except 
for taxes actually paid by the Administrator of General Services to 
lessors), or administrative fees shall be included in such rent 
charges. The judicial branch's repayment to the Administrator of 
General Services of the cost of repair and alteration projects 
performed by the General Services Administration on judicial branch 
accommodations after October 1, 2006, shall be recovered over time in a 
manner agreed upon by the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts and the Administrator.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 415

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2292

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent 
                                charges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 27, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert J. Krakauer, 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, 2007              
|                                     
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer               
|Robert J. Krakauer                   
|President and Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Eastside draftenvironmental impact statement**
 
SuDoc:A 13.92/2:EA7/V.1-2
ItemNumber:0080-F(online)
CGPsystem Number:000571391
 
Vol. 1
Vol. 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





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





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arrow Resources Development, Inc. (the Company ) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Peter J. Frugone, Chief Executive 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, subject to the disclosure of deficiencies in the Company ’ s disclosure controls and procedures set forth in Item 8A  of the Report:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





April 15, 2011





/s/ Peter J. FrugonePeter J. FrugoneChief Executive Officer
# CI2021234EN.01000101.xml

| 17.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 234/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 234/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 June 2021

appointing one alternate member of the Management Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) for the Netherlands

(2021/C 234 I/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/127 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing the European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (Eurofound), and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of nominations for appointment submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States and by the employees’ and the employers’ organisations,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decisions of 9 April 2019 (2), 25 June 2019 (3), 8 July 2019 (4), and 16 September 2019 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decisions of 9 April 2019 (2), 25 June 2019 (3), 8 July 2019 (4), and 16 September 2019 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2023.

| (2) | The trade unions’ organisation ETUC has submitted one nomination for a post to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The trade unions’ organisation ETUC has submitted one nomination for a post to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Management Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, for the period ending on 31 March 2023:

| II. | REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES’ ORGANISATIONS |
| --- | --- |

II.

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES’ ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Netherlands | | Ms Lottie VAN KELLE |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Netherlands

Ms Lottie VAN KELLE

Article 2

The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

This Decision shall be published for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 14 June 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. MENDES GODINHO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 74.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 135, 11.4.2019, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 216, 27.6.2019, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ C 232, 10.7.2019, p. 3.

4

(5)  
  OJ C 314, 18.9.2019, p. 2.

5

---
§ 3560.203 Tenant contributions. ( a ) *Tenant contributions.* A tenant's contribution to rent charged for a rental unit in an Agency financed housing project is based on the tenant's income, as calculated on the Agency's tenant certification forms, and the availability of Agency or non-Agency rental subsidies. ( 1 ) *Tenant contributions.* Borrowers must set tenant contributions to rent at the highest of the following standards but never more than the note rent: ( i ) Thirty percent of monthly adjusted income;
( ii ) Ten percent of gross monthly income;
( iii ) An amount equal to the portion of an assistance payment specifically designated to meet the household's shelter costs if the household is receiving assistance payments from a public agency; or
( iv ) The basic rent, unless RHS rental assistance is provided to the household.
( 2 ) *Tenant contribution surcharge.* Tenants in a Plan I housing project with incomes above the eligibility standards set in § 3560.152(a)(1) must pay a 25 percent surcharge in addition to note rent.
( b ) *Adjustment of tenant contribution.* Borrowers must adjust the tenant contribution whenever there is a change in tenant household status or income sufficient to generate a revised tenant certification in accordance with § 3560.152(e) or an Agency approved rent or utility allowance change that affects the tenant contribution amount.
( c ) *Overage.* If a tenant's tenant contribution is higher than basic rent, borrowers must remit to the Agency the rent collected in excess of the basic rent and up to the note rent.
2005-1566.

#### Natl. City Bank v. Wilkins.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2003-A-1330. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of appellant’s request for oral argument,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the request is granted.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2253 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to offer the 181 Area of the Gulf 

of Mexico for oil and gas leasing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2006 

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. TALENT, and Mr. DORGAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to offer the 181 

Area of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING IN 181 AREA 

4 OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) 181 AREA.—The term ‘‘181 Area’’ means 

7 the area identified in map 15, page 58, of the Pro8 posed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

9 Leasing Program for 1997–2002 of the Minerals 

10 Management Service. 
2 

•S 2253 IS

1 (2) MILITARY MISSION LINE.—The term ‘‘Mili2 tary Mission Line’’ means the north-south line at 

3 86°41′ W. longitude. 

4 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

5 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 

6 Minerals Management Service. 

7 (b) LEASE SALE.—Except as otherwise provided in 

8 this section, the Secretary shall offer the 181 Area for oil 

9 and gas leasing pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf 

10 Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as soon as practicable, 

11 but not later than 1 year, after the date of enactment of 

12 this Act. 

13 (c) EXCLUDED AREAS.—In carrying out subsection 

14 (b), the Secretary shall not offer for oil and gas leasing— 

15 (1) any area east of the Military Mission Line, 

16 unless the Secretary of Defense agrees in writing be17 fore the area is offered for lease that the area can 

18 be developed in a manner that will not interfere with 

19 military activities; or 

20 (2) any area that is within 100 miles of the 

21 coastline of the State of Florida. 

22 (d) LEASING PROGRAM.—The 181 Area shall be of23 fered for lease under this section notwithstanding the 

24 omission of the 181 Area from any outer Continental Shelf 
3 

•S 2253 IS

1 leasing program under section 18 of the Outer Continental 

2 Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344). 

Æ
#### In the Matter of Mary Weissman, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State commissioner dated April 27, 1979 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed the order of the local agency discontinuing petitioner’s Medicaid assistance. Determination confirmed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Respondents’ decision to discontinue petitioner’s Medicaid assistance was correct. She is an employable person within the meaning of subdivision 5 of section 131 of the Social Services Law and 18 NYCRR 385.1. As such, she failed to *683comply with the relevant work rules promulgated by the State commissioner and thus no longer qualifies for medical assistance. We note that although petitioner’s Medicaid benefits were properly discontinued, her children’s medical assistance benefits are not affected (see *Matter of Gunn v Blum,*48 NY2d 58). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### § 42.107 Lot acceptance criteria.

(a) The acceptability of the lot is determined by relating the number and class of defects enumerated on the worksheet to the acceptance and rejection numbers shown in §§ 42.109 through 42.111 for the respective sample size and Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

(b) Unless otherwise specified, use the following AQL's for the respective class of defects:

| Defect class | AQL at origin inspection | AQL at other than origin inspection |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Critical | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Major | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| Total | 6.5 | 10.0 |

(c) Refer to the appropriate sample size and AQL and compare the number of defects found in the sample with the acceptance (Ac) and rejection (Re) numbers in the sampling plan.

(1) Accept the lot after examining the single sample or first sample of a double sampling plan when all of the following conditions are met:

(i) The number of critical defects does not exceed the applicable acceptance number (Ac) for critical defects, and

(ii) The number of major defects does not exceed the applicable acceptance number (Ac) for major defects, and

(iii) The total number of critical, major, and minor defects does not exceed the applicable acceptance number (Ac) for total defects.

(2) Reject the lot after examining the single sample or first sample of a double sampling plan when any one or more of the following conditions occur:

(i) The number of critical defects equals or exceeds the applicable rejection number (Re) for critical defects, or

(ii) The number of major defects equals or exceeds the applicable rejection number (Re) for major defects, or

(iii) The total number of critical, major, and minor defects equals or exceeds the applicable rejection number (Re) for total defects.

(3) If the lot can neither be accepted nor rejected on the first sample, when a double sampling plan is used, select and examine the prescribed second sample. Accept the lot if the accumulated defects of the first and second sample meet conditions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, otherwise, reject the lot.

[31 FR 4687, Mar. 19, 1966, as amended at 36 FR 18456, Sept. 15, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BASAVARAJ A. HOOLI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv74-MW/GRJ

JORGE PEREZ and

DR. D. PAGIDIPATI,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 15, and has also considered de novo the objections 

of Plaintiff. ECF No. 16. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s 

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7, is DISMISSED sua sponte for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.” The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 21, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00074-MW-GRJ Document 18 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Lawrence Franklin, Appellant-Respondent, v. Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, Respondent-Appellant.

Motion by appel*658lant-respondent for a preference in the hearing of his appeal and for other relief denied. On the court’s own motion, appeal and cross appeal dismissed, without costs. The judgment appealed from is intermediate and no appeal lies as of right from such judgment (cf. *Matter of Soros*v. *Board of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton,*24 A D 2d 705, 706). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Babin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-60474

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CLYDE WENDALL SMITH,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WALTER BOOKER; MIKE MOORE, Attorney

General, State of Mississippi,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. m:98-CV-58-S-B

_________________________________________________________________

January 12, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clyde Wendall Smith, Mississippi prisoner #44932, appeals the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he raised five

ineffective assistance claims. The district court granted a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) on each claim.

Smith does not renew his claim that counsel was ineffective in

failing to move for a severance, and the claim is waived due to his

failure to brief it. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993); Fe d. R. App. P. 28(a). For the first time on

appeal, he argues that counsel wa s ineffective in failing to2

present evidence that the use of brass knuckles would leave

permanent scars and in failing to point out that the victim, Lynn

Robinson, did not have any such scars. Not only does the COA not

include this issue, but this court will not consider a new theory

of relief rai sed for the first time on appeal. S ee Brown v.

Lensing

, 171 F.3d 1031, 1032 n.10 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette v.

Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Smith’s claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to call

Officer Thurmond fails because, even if it is assumed that counsel

was deficient in not securing Officer Thurmond’s presence, Smith

has not demonstrated any resulting prejudice since the substance of

the proposed testimony was presented via counsel’s crossexamination of Patricia Robinson. S ee St rickland v. Washington

,

466 U.S. 66 8, 694, 697 (1984). Smith’s claim that counsel was

ineffective in failing to impeach Patricia Robins on also fails

because he concedes that counsel cross-examined her regarding her

prior inconsistent statements. S ee id. at 687. To the extent that

Smith argues that counsel sho uld have attempted to introduce the

prior statements formally into evidence, the claim fails because he

cannot demonstrate any prejudice flow ing from the alleged error.

Id. at 694, 697. Smith’s claim that counsel was ineffective in

failing to impeach Wendell Wright with prior inconsist ent

statements also fails for lack of prejudice. Id. The claim that

counsel breached the duty of loyalty is simply a restatement of3

Smith’s other ineffective assistance claims and fails for the

reasons already stated. Id.

A F F I R M E D.
November 29, 1999

The Board of Directors of United Asset Management Corporation
c/o Norton H. Reamer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
United Asset Management Corporation
One International Place
Boston, MA  02110

Dear Members of the Board:

I hereby resign from my position as President and Chief Operating Officer of
United Asset Management Corporation ("UAM"), from my position as a Director of
UAM, from any position I may hold as an officer or director of any affiliate of
UAM, and from any other position that I may hold with any pooled investment
vehicle advised by an affiliate of UAM, all effective December 31, 1999.

We have agreed that my Employment Agreement (made as of March 1, 1998) is
amended so that the Term shall end on December 31, 1999. I understand that, in
all other respects, this Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect without amendment. In particular, I acknowledge my obligations under
Section 5 (Confidentiality) under which I will remain obligated to UAM following
the termination of my employment.

Sincerely yours,

/s/  C.E. Haldeman, Jr.
Charles E. Haldeman, Jr.

Acknowledged, accepted and agreed:

UNITED ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

By:  /s/ Norton H. Reamer
     -------------------------------------------
         Norton H. Reamer, Chairman of the Board
         and Chief Executive Officer