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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 155 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 155

   Commending the Government of Italy for its commitment to halting 
                            software piracy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 25 (legislative day, October 13), 1993

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kerry) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                          on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commending the Government of Italy for its commitment to halting 
                            software piracy.

Whereas the software industry estimates that United States and European software 
        firms lost more than $4,600,000,000 in sales in Europe in 1992 due to 
        illegal piracy of their products;
Whereas the illegal piracy of software threatens the continued development of 
        the software industry throughout the world and the availability of new 
        and better products for computer users;
Whereas the illegal piracy of software causes significant tax revenue losses 
        from lost sales and gives criminal organizations a new area of activity 
        through the supply of counterfeit product;
Whereas the Government of Italy enacted new legislation in December 1992, to 
        strengthen the protection of software under Italy's copyright law;
Whereas the Guardia di Finanza, the Carabinieri, and the Italian national police 
        have recently undertaken a number of significant and highly successful 
        antipiracy actions against illegal software use throughout Italy;
Whereas much of the software uncovered during these actions has been pirated 
        copies of products of leading American software companies; and
Whereas the recent antipiracy actions by Italian authorities have resulted in a 
        significant reduction in software piracy in Italy: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the Government of Italy on its commitment to 
        halting software piracy;
            (2) congratulates the Guardia di Finanza, the Carabinieri, 
        and the Italian national police for their continuing antipiracy 
        actions; and
            (3) expresses its hope that the Italian authorities will 
        continue to prosecute software laws vigorously and that 
        copyright agencies around the world will follow the example set 
        by the people and Government of Italy.

                                 <all>
```
#### Alice L. Miller *v.*Robert B. Miller

Submitted February 2

decided February 27, 1968

*James F. Bingham,*in support of the motion.

*Jack Stock,*in opposition.

The motion by the defendant for a review of the order of the trial court terminating the stay of execution in the appeal from the Superior Court in Middlesex County is denied.
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132

To amend paragraph 2 of rule XXV.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. FORD (for Mr. MITCHELL) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend paragraph 2 of rule XXV.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 2 of Rule XXV of the

2 Standing Rules of the Senate is amended for the One

3 Hundred Third Congress as follows: strike ‘‘13’’ after

4 ‘‘Governmental Affairs’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘14’’.

Æ
#### D.H.R. Construction Company, Inc. *v.*The Ridgefield Corporation et al.

*Herbert 8. Wolfe,*on the motion.

Submitted September 2

decided September 24, 1969

The motion by the named defendant for this court to review the action of the trial court denying its motion for an extension of time in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
EXHIBIT 12.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Anatoly Hurgin, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment
No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Ability Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Anatoly Hurgin | 
|------------------ | 

Anatoly Hurgin

Chief Executive Officer



Date: July 6, 2020
exv10wt



 





EXHIBIT 10T




COGNEX CORPORATION




SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



Cognex Corporation (the “Company”)
pays each Director (other than Robert J. Shillman
and Patrick A. Alias) an annual fee for his services on the Company’s Board of
Directors and its committees, plus additional amounts for each meeting attended.
Each Director receives annual cash compensation in the amount of $7,500, plus an
additional $4,000 for each meeting attended. Each Director who serves on the
Compensation/Stock Option Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors receives an
annual fee of $2,000. Each Director who serves on the Audit Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors receives an annual fee of $3,500. The Chairman of the
Audit Committee receives an additional annual fee of $2,500. Each Audit Committee
member also receives $500 for each quarterly meeting attended to discuss the
Company’s financial results and $1,500 for any additional meetings attended.



All of the Directors (other than Dr. Shillman)
also receive an annual option grant
of 7,500 shares for 2007. These options have a
ten-year term and vest in four equal annual installments.



Dr. Shillman, who is the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, receives no additional
compensation to serve on the Company’s Board of Directors and Mr. Alias, who is an
employee of the Company, receives no additional cash compensation to serve on the
Company’s Board of Directors.
#### William Geriak et al. *v.*John Geriak et al.

The motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.

*653Argued April 2

decided April *4,*1968

*Frederick M. Tobin,*for the appellee (defendant Anne G-eriak); with him was *Richard W. Martin,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Julius B. Kuriansky,*for the appellants (defendant Mildred G-eriak et al.).
**
**Exhibit 34.15**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2018 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (item 1122(d)) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, excluding those criteria determined by managementand noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backedsecurities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliancewith the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination. 

We conducted our examination in accordance with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform theexamination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Company complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d). Our examination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform,determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourprocedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset backed transactionincluded in the Platform. Further an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’s servicingactivities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the yearended December 31, 2018, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects. 

 

/s/ Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP

New York, New York

February 20, 2019

 
1 

**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL LEE DRAKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-95-124-F, CA-95-187-5-F)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Drake, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Drake, Nos. CR-95-124-F; CA-95-

187-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Garkus, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,182.

First District, Third Division.

February 6, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Saul H. Brauner and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and John M. Goldberg, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

*427MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, George Garkus, was found guilty of theft, placed on probation for five years and ordered to make restitution of $350 at the rate of ten dollars per month. A year later a rule to show cause why his probation should not be revoked was served upon him and a hearing was held.

At the revocation hearing it was disclosed that three months after Garkus was placed on probation he was indicted on four charges of armed robbery and theft; that six months after receiving probation he was found guilty of theft and was sentenced to thirty days in the House of Correction; that he had not complied with the restitution order, and that there was pending against him a charge of possessing a hypodermic needle. When the hearing was completed the court vacated the probation and sentenced him to from three to ten years in the penitentiary.

The defendant complains that the sentence imposed upon him was too severe and not commensurate with the crime for which he had been convicted. He prays that the sentence be reduced to two to five years and that it be made to run concurrently with the sentences he received on the four indictments for armed robbery and theft mentioned above.

The armed robbery and theft cases are not before us and we know neither the facts nor the sentences imposed. We have no jurisdiction over them and have no authority to correlate the present case with them. We do have the authority to reduce the sentence in the case under consideration (Supreme Court Rule 615 (b) (4)) but we do not believe a reduction is merited.

The punishment given the defendant was within the limits prescribed by the legislature (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 38, par 16-1) and was imposed in accordance with the statute governing violations of probation (Ill Rev Stats *4281967, c 38, par 117-3 (d)). The trial court had placed the defendant on probation despite what was described as a “substantial criminal background.” The court had warned the defendant that if the conditions of probation were violated it would not be sympathetic to him. Despite the court’s leniency, he broke the terms of his probation by continuing to engage in criminal activities. The punishment imposed by the trial court was within its discretion and was fully warranted.

Affirmed.

SULLIVAN, P. J. and SCHWARTZ, J., concur.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Principal Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
	   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   August 13, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7686 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7686

To amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act 
  to clarify the definition of foreign country for purposes of malign 
    foreign talent recruitment restriction, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2024

Mr. Mike Garcia of California (for himself and Ms. Stevens) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, 
                         Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act 
  to clarify the definition of foreign country for purposes of malign 
    foreign talent recruitment restriction, 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. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR PURPOSES 
              OF MALIGN FOREIGN TALENT RECRUITMENT RESTRICTION.

    Section 10638 of title VI of division B of the Research and 
Development, Competition, and Innovation Act is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``of concern'' after ``foreign country'' 
        each place such term appears;
            (2) by striking ``means--'' and all that follows through 
        ``any program, position, or activity'' and inserting ``means 
        any program, position, or activity'';
            (3) by striking subparagraph (B);
            (4) by redesignating clauses (i) through (ix) as 
        subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively, and moving such 
        subparagraphs, as so redesignated, two ems to the left;
            (5) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as so 
        redesignated, by striking ``directly provided'' and inserting 
        ``whether directly or indirectly provided''; and
            (6) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``; and'' and inserting a period.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 19 (Friday, January 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1825]



[[Page 5671]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5280-N-04]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: January 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: January 22, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
 [FR Doc. E9-1825 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6915]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, to remove nonproliferation measures on one Russian entity.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 10, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to the authorities vested in the President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) (“IEEPA”), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601*et seq.*), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751*et seq.*), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination was made on March 1, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States to remove the restrictions imposed pursuant to sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the Executive Order on the following Russian entity, its sub-units and successors:                

1. Glavkosmos.

                    These restrictions were imposed on July 30, 1998 (                    *see*63 FR 42089).                

Dated: March 4, 2010.

Vann H. Van Diepen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.

[FR Doc. 2010-5135 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
%%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
This PostScript file was created from an encrypted PDF file.
Redistilling encrypted PDF is not permitted.
%%[ Flushing: rest of job (to end-of-file) will be ignored ]%%
%%[ Warning: PostScript error. No PDF file produced. ] %%