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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 787 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 787

 To require executive agencies to reduce cost-sharing requirements for 
certain grants with certain nonprofit organizations 25 percent, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2023

   Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon (for herself, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Sablan, Mrs. 
   Radewagen, and Mr. Soto) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require executive agencies to reduce cost-sharing requirements for 
certain grants with certain nonprofit organizations 25 percent, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Empowering Nonprofits Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS.

    (a) Reduction of Cost-Sharing Requirement.--Beginning on the date 
of the enactment of this Act and ending 5 years thereafter, the head of 
an executive agency shall reduce any cost-sharing requirement 25 
percent for an eligible nonprofit organization for grants made directly 
to that organization.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Eligible nonprofit organization.--The term ``eligible 
        nonprofit organization'' means a nonprofit organization that is 
        located in a State with more than 20 percent of individuals 
        living below the Federal poverty line.
            (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
        the meaning given in section 133 of title 41, United States 
        Code.
            (3) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
        organization'' means an organization that is described in 
        section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1968 and 
        exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
            (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, 
        or possession of the United States, and each federally 
        recognized Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
§ 582.5361 Histidine. ( a ) *Product.* Histidine (L- and DL-forms).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Description of Severance Arrangement



 
EXHIBIT 10.21

 
Description of Severance Arrangement with
William P. Fasig 
 
VeriSign has agreed to the
following severance agreement should Mr. Fasig be involuntarily terminated from VeriSign without cause: 
 
For up to 1 month of employment—receive 12 months salary 
After 1 month of employment—receive 11 months salary 
After 2 months of employment—receive 10 months salary 
After 3 months of employment—receive 9 months salary 
After 4 months of employment—receive 8 months salary 
After 5 months of employment—receive 7 months salary 
After 6 months of employment—receive 6 months salary 
 
No severance payment is made in the event Mr. Fasig resigns voluntarily
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                             
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084,
8th Floor 401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC33 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby
certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2018.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Daniel Bober        
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Skip to main content

            open.obamawhitehouse.gov          

Catalog

*facebook**twitterbird**youtube*

President Obama is committed to a more transparent federal government that offers better digital services to the American people: 

Data Catalog
Browse White House datasets and view types.
28Datasets

Data
President Obama's 2017 Budget

Data
The White House - Nominations & Appointments

Data
White House Visitor Records Requests

Developers
Use public data from the White House public data to help build your next product.

Data
2015 Report to Congress on White House Staff 

Data
2012 Report to Congress on White House Staff 

Data
2013 Report to Congress on White House Staff

Open Government Data
President Obama is committed to a 21st century digital government, including connecting citizen developers with the tools to unlock government data.

          -  Data Policy 
          -  Accessibility 
          -  Privacy Policy 
          -  Contact Us 
          -  Help 

*facebook**twitterbird**youtube*
Powered By
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRANDON PATRICK AKANA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10602

D.C. No. 1:97-cr-00687-DAE

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2013** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Brandon Patrick Akana appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Akana contends that the district court erred by impermissibly lengthening

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10602

his sentence based on the need for rehabilitation. We review for plain error, see

United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. Though

the district court discussed rehabilitation during the sentencing hearing, it did not

impose or lengthen the sentence based on Akana’s rehabilitative needs. See Tapia

v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011) (“A court commits no error by

discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of

specific treatment or training programs.”).

We decline to reach Akana’s argument that the district court improperly

relied on the need for punishment in imposing sentence because it is raised for the

first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 997 (9th

Cir. 2006).

Akana’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting the

government’s request to extend time to file the answering brief is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                              SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                        DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                       FILED 09:00 AM 02/11/2003
                                                             030089040 - 3624274

                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                             BLACK WARRIOR GAS, L.P.



     THE  UNDERSIGNED,  being  the General Partner of BLACK WARRIOR GAS, L.P., a
limited  partnership formed pursuant to the provisions of Title 6, Chapter 17 of
the  Delaware  Code, does hereby make this Certificate of Limited Partnership in
accordance  with Section 17-201 of the Delaware code, and does hereby certify as
follows:

     1.     The  name which the partnership business shall be conducted is BLACK
WARRIOR  GAS,  L.P.

     2.     The  address  of the partnership's registered office in the State of
Delaware  and  the  registered  agent for service of process shall be in care of
Corporation Guarantee and Trust Company, the Brandywine Building, 1000 West 17th
Floor,  in  the  City  of  Wilmington,  County  of new Castle, State of Delaware
19801.

     3.     The  name  and  place  of  business  of  the  General Partner of the
Partnership is:

                    BWP GAS LLC
                    111 Presidential Boulevard, Suite 158
                    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004


     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of February,
2003.

                                           General Partner:

                                           BWP GAS, LLC
                                             BY:  HBA GAS, INC.
                                                  Managing Member



                                           By:   "HOWARD M. APPEL"
                                              ----------------------------
                                                Howard M. Appel, President


<PAGE>
Letter Amendment



Exhibit 10.23 
[LOGO] 
 
February 28, 2003 
 
Andrew Garard 
Reuters Limited 
85 Fleet Street 
London    EC4P 4AJ 
 
Re:    TIBCO BusinessFactor 
 
Dear Andrew: 
 
To confirm our discussion this morning, TIBCO Software Inc. (“TIBCO”) hereby grants Reuters Limited
(“Reuters”) the right and license to distribute the object code version of TIBCO BusinessFactor solely within the financial services industry on an unlimited, royalty-free basis for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of this
letter. This right and license shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of that certain First Amended and Restated License, Maintenance and Distribution Agreement, effective May 28, 1999, by and between TIBCO
and Reuters (the “Agreement”). 
 
In consideration for
TIBCO granting this license, Reuters hereby agrees to pay to TIBCO the sum of US$2,000,000 due and payable net 30 days from the date of this letter. This sum includes bronze level maintenance for the term of the Agreement. 
 
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are unmodified and remain in
full force and effect. 
 
Please indicate your acceptance to the
above terms by signing in the space provided below. 
 
Sincerely yours 
TIBCO Software Inc. 
[STAMP] 
 

	
	 /s/    GINGER
KELLY

	

	 Ginger Kelly
 Vice President, Corporate Controller


 
Agreed and Accepted 
Reuters Limited 
 

	
	 /s/    ANDREW GARARD

	

	 Name: Andrew Garard
 Title: Deputy General Counsel
 Date: 28/2/03


 
TIBCO Software Inc.
n 3303 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 n TEL: +1-650-846-1000 n FAX +1-650-846-1005 n www.tibco.com
# C_2016156EN.01001202.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-26/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I - Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Citrus fruits - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing))

(2016/C 156/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 12.2

I, John J. Crowley, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Merus N.V.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer 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 company 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 company, 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) [OMITTED]

(c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the company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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                                       |  |                     |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | 
|Date: April 28, 2017 |  | By:                                                                   |  | /s/ John J. Crowley
|                     |  | John J. Crowley Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District 1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-1580

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

James Edward Hicks, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 5, 1997

 Filed: February 7, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Hicks appeals his conviction and 112-month sentence imposed by

the district court following his conditional guilty plea to possessing an 1

unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. We

affirm.

Hicks argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to

suppress the shotgun found in his car at the time of his arrest. We

conclude the district court did not clearly err, as the evidence in the

record shows the officers had probable cause to arrest Hicks; thus, the

contemporaneous search of the car was valid as a search incident to arrest

and as an inventory search. See United States v. Clapp, 46 F.3d 795, 799

(8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v. Cummins, 920 F.2d

498, 502 (8th Cir.
-2-

1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 962 (1991).

Hicks also argues that the district court erred in denying his

request for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.3 (1995) (over-represented criminal history). Hicks has not shown

nor does the record indicate that the district court was unaware of its

authority to depart from the Guidelines range. Consequently, we cannot

review the district court's discretionary refusal to depart. See United

States v. Elkins, 16 F.3d 952, 954 (8th Cir. 1994).

Finally, we reject Hicks's challenge to the constitutionality of

section 5861(d). See United States v. Aiken, 974 F.2d 446, 448-49 (4th

Cir. 1992); United States v. Parker, 960 F.2d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1992); see

also United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 34.2**

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar, or paying agent services, as of and for the year ended October 31, 2015, except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended October 31, 2015, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

January 13, 2016

 

1

----
# C_2016098EN.01004001.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)

(Case T-541/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ILLIRIA - Earlier Community word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl (Salice Salentino, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo and V. Wellens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2014 (Case R 917/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía Pla, SA and Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---