alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AM #2 TO AMENDED & RESTATED DECLARATION OF TRUST & TRUST AGMT OF CO-REGISTRANT



 Exhibit 4.2.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

 DECLARATION OF TRUST AND TRUST AGREEMENT 
 OF 
 DB US DOLLAR INDEX MASTER TRUST 
 This Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”) to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement dated as of
January 31, 2007 (the “Declaration of Trust”) of DB US Dollar Index Master Trust (the “Master Trust”) by and among DB Commodity Services LLC (the “Managing Owner”), Wilmington Trust Company and
PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Trust. 
 WHEREAS, the Managing Owner has obtained the written approval of each series of
PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Trust to amend the Declaration of Trust to memorialize changes in certain fee provisions disclosed in the Declaration of Trust; and 
 WHEREAS, the Managing Owner wishes to amend the Declaration of Trust pursuant to Section 11.1(a) thereof to give effect to the foregoing. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of all of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Declaration of Trust is amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Effective as of January 4, 2010, Section 4.9 shall be amended and replaced in its entirety as follows: 

 “SECTION 4.9.    Compensation to the Managing Owner. The Managing Owner shall be entitled to compensation
for its services as managing owner of the Master Trust as set forth in the Prospectus.” 
  

	 	2.	This Amendment No. 2 to the Declaration of Trust shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware. 

  

	 	3.	Terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Declaration of Trust, as amended. 

 Remainder of page left blank intentionally. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 has been executed for
and on behalf of the undersigned effective as of the 4th
day of January, 2010. 
  

			
	 DB COMMODITY SERVICES LLC, as
 Managing Owner

		
	By:	 	/s/ Martin Kremenstein
		 	Name: Martin Kremenstein
		 	Title: Chief Operating Officer
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael Gilligan
		 	Name: Michael Gilligan
		 	Title: Principal Financial Officer


 Acknowledged: 
 WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its 
 individual capacity but solely as Trustee 
 of the Master Trust 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Joseph B. Feil
		 	Name: Joseph B. Feil
		 	Title: Vice President
# PGI 219.811 Preparing the contracts.

- PGI 219.811-1 Sole source. 
- PGI 219.811-2 Competitive. 

**Parent topic:**PGI 219.8 -CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (THE 8(A) PROGRAM)
H. Res. 423

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

September 7, 2005.

Whereas William H. Rehnquist was born on October 1, 1924, 

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and grew up the son of a paper 

salesman; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist served the United States in 

the Army Air Corps during World War II; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist attended and graduated from 

Stanford University, earning a bachelor’s and master’s 

degree in political science, and a second master’s degree 

in government from Harvard University; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist went on to graduate first in 

his class at Stanford Law School in 1952, where he met 

his wife Natalie ‘‘Nan’’ Cornell; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist and Natalie had three children: James, Janet, and Nancy; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist served as a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson on the Supreme Court during the 

1951 and 1952 terms, and as Assistant Attorney General 

for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, 

where he advised the Nixon Administration on constitutional law from 1969 until 1971; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President 

Nixon and confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Jus-
2

•HRES 423 EH 

tice of the United States on December 10, 1971, at the 

age of 47; 

Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President 

Reagan and confirmed by the Senate as the 16th Chief 

Justice of the United States in 1986; 

Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist’s 33-year tenure on the Supreme Court was one of the longest and most influential 

in the Nation’s history; 

Whereas legal scholars of all perspectives rank Chief Justice 

Rehnquist as among the great Chief Justices of the 

United States who influenced the interpretation of the 

law in significant ways; 

Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist was widely respected for his 

evenhandedness as Chief Justice; and 

Whereas on January 7, 2002, the 30th Anniversary of his 

swearing in at the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul 

Stevens praised Chief Justice Rehnquist for ‘‘the efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that you 

have consistently displayed when presiding at our Conferences’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) has learned with profound sorrow of the death 

of Chief Justice Rehnquist; and 
3

•HRES 423 EH 

(2) honors, recognizes, and expresses gratitude for 

the distinguished service, career, and achievements of 

William H. Rehnquist upon his death. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Walker, Appellant.

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered February 26, 1979, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 7 to 21 years, reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress granted, and the matter remanded for a new trial. By order of this court dated June 26, 1980, this appeal was held in abeyance pending a further *Huntley*hearing to determine whether inculpatory statements by the defendant after a felony complaint had been filed against him were made in the absence of counsel who in fact represented him. After the directed hearing, the trial court found that "the credible evidence established that appellant was not represented by counsel at his interrogation on May 16, 1980 and that the People completely failed to sustain their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue directed by the Appellate Division.” With commendable candor, the District Attorney concedes the correctness of these, findings. The conviction is accordingly reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. Concur— Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3196]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold an Open 
Meeting on Monday, February 22, 2010, in the Multipurpose Room, L-006. 
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public, with 
seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30 
a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks.
    On February 2, 2010, the Commission published notice of the 
Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9104), indicating that the meeting is 
open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments 
to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a 
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of a Committee 
recusal policy, a report from the Education Subcommittee, including a 
presentation on the National Financial Capability Survey, a report from 
the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee, including a discussion of 
fiduciary duty and mandatory arbitration, a report from the Investor as 
Owner Subcommittee, including recommendations for the Committee on 
Regulation FD and proxy voting transparency, as well as reports on a 
work plan for environmental, social, and governance disclosure and on 
financial reform legislation, and discussion of next steps and closing 
comments.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 12, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3196 Filed 2-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### W. H. Dyer, Administrator of Estate of Volney Ellsworth Love, Deceased, Appellant, v. Martin Dooley, et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 9,542.

opinion filed August 8, 1940.

Eben B. Gower, for appellant; W. H. Dyer, *pro se.*No appearance for appellees.

Opinion by

Justice Huffman.

“Not to be published in full.”
#### § 707.15 Collective bargaining.

When establishing drug testing programs, contractors who are parties to collective bargaining agreements will negotiate with employee representatives, as appropriate, under labor relations laws or negotiated agreements. Such negotiation, however, cannot change or alter the requirements of this rule because DOE security requirements themselves are non-negotiable under the security provisions of DOE contracts. Employees covered under collective bargaining agreements will not be subject to the provisions of this rule until those agreements have been modified, as necessary; provided, however, that if one year after commencement of negotiation the parties have failed to reach agreement, an impasse will be determined to have been reached and the contractor will unilaterally implement the requirements of this rule.
#### § 708.39 The Contract Disputes Act.

A final agency decision and order issued pursuant to this regulation is not considered a claim by the government against a contractor or “a decision by the contracting officer” under sections 6 and 7 of the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 605 and 41 U.S.C. 606).
§ 50.12 Specific exemptions. ( a ) The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are— ( 1 ) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.
( 2 ) The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever— ( i ) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or
( ii ) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or
( iii ) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or
( iv ) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or
( v ) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; or
( vi ) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. If such condition is relied on exclusively for satisfying paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for Operations has consulted with the Commission.
( b ) Any person may request an exemption permitting the conduct of activities prior to the issuance of a construction permit prohibited by § 50.10. The Commission may grant such an exemption upon considering and balancing the following factors: ( 1 ) Whether conduct of the proposed activities will give rise to a significant adverse impact on the environment and the nature and extent of such impact, if any;
( 2 ) Whether redress of any adverse environment impact from conduct of the proposed activities can reasonably be effected should such redress be necessary;
( 3 ) Whether conduct of the proposed activities would foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives; and
( 4 ) The effect of delay in conducting such activities on the public interest, including the power needs to be used by the proposed facility, the availability of alternative sources, if any, to meet those needs on a timely basis and delay costs to the applicant and to consumers.
Issuance of such an exemption shall not be deemed to constitute a commitment to issue a construction permit. During the period of any exemption granted pursuant to this paragraph (b), any activities conducted shall be carried out in such a manner as will minimize or reduce their environmental impact. [37 FR 5748, Mar. 21, 1972, as amended at 40 FR 8789, Mar. 3, 1975; 50 FR 50777, Dec. 12, 1985]
1513.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes EPA policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies, nonpersonal services, and construction from commercial sources, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.    **Parent topic:** PART 1513 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
|   | (a) | Amendment      no. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December      31, 2007 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section      13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (b) | Information      contained in amendment no. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February      18, 2009 | /s/      James J. HoutzJames      J. HoutzChief      Executive Officer  |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| February      18, 2009 | /s/      Rodney AndersonRodney      AndersonChief      Financial Officer     |

----
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1114 

Expressing support for designation of the week of October 7, 2018, through 

October 13, 2018, as ‘‘Latex Allergy Awareness Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2018 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself and Mr. ENGEL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of the week of October 

7, 2018, through October 13, 2018, as ‘‘Latex Allergy 

Awareness Week’’. 

Whereas incidences of latex allergies have increased due to 

widespread exposure to products containing latex rubber 

allergen; 

Whereas latex allergies can be elicited by touching a product 

containing natural rubber latex, breathing airborne latex 

protein particles, or digesting food prepared using latex 

gloves; 

Whereas those who suffer from latex allergies commonly suffer from cross-reactive food allergies or asthma; 

Whereas latex allergies can be prevented by avoiding all latexrelated products which can be found in health care enviVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:03 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1114.IH HR1114

khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1114 IH 

ronments, restaurants, childcare facilities, workplaces, 

schools, communities, and homes; and 

Whereas the week of October 7, 2018, through October 13, 

2018, would be appropriate to designate as ‘‘Latex Allergy Awareness Week’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘Latex Allergy Awareness Week’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 587

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

December 14, 2005.

Whereas Tony Stewart won NASCAR’s Nextel Cup Championship in 2005, the 57th season of NASCAR’s premier 

series; 

Whereas Stewart finished with an amazing 6,533 points, the 

most for any driver in the 2005 NASCAR series; 

Whereas Stewart in the 2005 series won 3 starting pole positions, had 5 wins, 17 top 5 finishes, and 25 top 10 finishes; 

Whereas Stewart also won the Gatorade Duel 2, the Dodge/

Save Mart 350, the Pepsi 400, the New England 300, 

and the Sirius Satellite Radio at the Glen; 

Whereas Stewart’s #20 car started in 22nd position, led the 

most laps, and also finished first in the Allstate 400 at 

the Brickyard, continuing Hoosier dominance at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway’s only NASCAR Nextel Cup 

race; 

Whereas Stewart is the recipient of Indiana’s highest honor, 

the Sagamore of the Wabash, which was awarded to him 

by Governor Mitch Daniels on August 29, 2005, after 

Stewart won the Allstate 400 at the Brickyard; 

Whereas Stewart has won 2 NASCAR Nextel Cup Championships in only his 7th year in the NASCAR circuit; 
2

•HRES 587 EH 

Whereas Stewart has won 8 other auto racing championships 

in his career including the Indy Racing League; 

Whereas Stewart has ranked in the top 10 every season since 

his 1999 rookie year and has never ranked lower than 

7th in the final point standings; and 

Whereas Stewart, who began racing in Indiana and excelled 

at a very young age, was born in Columbus, Indiana, and 

continues to have close ties with the State of Indiana and 

the City of Columbus: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Tony Stewart for winning the 2005 NASCAR Nextel 

Cup Championship.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: "Bill Batchelor" <bill

- batchelor@tamu.edu>

To: "'Kavya Kasturi'" <Kavya.Kasturi@erg.com>

Date: 3/30/2010 5:04 PM

Subject: Dissertation

Kavya Kasturi:

I talked to Dong Suk Han and he has agreed to allow me to send you a copy of

his diss ertation for your use in developing a report to EPA regarding

technologies for treating power plan wastewaters. Because of the size of

the file, I will not attach it to this email. However, you can download it

at http://batchelor.tamu.edu/files/. Please let me know when you have

downloaded the file, so that I can remove it. Good luck with your work.

Bill Batchelor

Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering 979.845.1304

Texas A&M University 979.862.1542 (fax)

3136 TAMU

bill

- b atchelor@tamu.edu

College Station, TX 77843

- 3136 http://batchelor.tamu.edu/bill/
Exhibit 32

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


The undersigned  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the quarterly
report of  United  States  Basketball  League,  Inc.  on Form  10-QSB/A  for the
quarterly  period ended August 31, 2005 fully complies with the  requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the
information  contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents
in all material  respects the  financial  condition  and results of operation of
United States Basketball League, Inc.

Date: January 26, 2006

/s/Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III
------------------------------
Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III
President


Date: January 26, 2006

/s/Richard C. Meisenheimer
---------------------------
Richard C. Meisenheimer
Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3258

___________

Serafin Ruiz Carrillo, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 2010

Filed: June 16, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Serafin Ruiz Carrillo, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider

the BIA’s prior decision, affirming an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of

removal. We conclude Carrillo has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of

reopening and reconsideration, see Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.

2010) (alien waived claim by failing to present argument on appeal), and that the

denial of cancellation of removal is not properly before us, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

(petition for review must be filed within 30 days of final order of removal);

Boudaguian v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2004) (motion to reopen and
reconsider filed after BIA affirmed IJ’s denial of removal relief did not toll time for

seeking judicial review of BIA’s affirmance of IJ’s decision).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny respondent’s

pending motion.

______________________________

-2-
#### HALL v. WOODMERE HOMESTEAD CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Martin VI W. Hall against the Woodmere Homestead Company and others.

PER CURIAM.

Motion granted, to the extent of requiring appellant to correct “the printed appeal book on file with the clerk of this court, so that the same shall include the! affidavit of Thomas J. Stewart, verified March 12, 1914, the affidavit of Ellen Cooper, verified March 27, 1914, and the affidavit of Paul E. Mead, verified April 3, 1914, read upon the motion which resulted in the order of April 4, 1914, which has been appealed from, and also the two affidavits referred to in the affidavit of William L. Flagg, verified June 17, 1914, and amending the order appealed from by reciting! these affidavits therein. Upon such corrected record, the said appeal is set down for argument on Tuesday, June 23, 1914. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1118.