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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1039

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and

gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. MCKEON, and Mr. HANCOCK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the estate and gift taxes and the tax on generationskipping transfers.

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

3 That (a) chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

4 (relating to estate tax) is hereby repealed.

5 (b) Chapter 12 of such Code (relating to gift tax)

6 is hereby repealed.

7 (c) Chapter 13 of such Code (relating to tax on gen8 eration-skipping transfers) is hereby repealed.
2

•HR 1039 IH

1 (d)(1) The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply

2 to the estates of decedents dying after the date of the en3 actment of this Act.

4 (2) The repeals made by subsections (b) and (c) shall

5 apply with respect to transfers made after the date of the

6 enactment of this Act.

Æ
# CI2020444EN.01000301.xml

| 22.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 444/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 444/3

---

Joint declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the re-use of decommitted funds in relation to the research programme

(2020/C 444 I/03)

Without prejudice to their institutional prerogatives, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree to make available again to the benefit of the research programme commitment appropriations, corresponding to the amount up to EUR 0,5 billion (in 2018 prices) in the period 2021-2027 of decommitments, which results from total or partial non-implementation of projects belonging to that programme or its predecessor as provided for in Article 15(3) of the Financial Regulation.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Walker, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 243]

- Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 12, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. This waiver was contained in a written plea agreement, and the court made an inquiry of defendant that was sufficient to establish that he read, understood, and agreed to every aspect of that agreement (see *People v Calvi,*89 NY2d 868, 871 [1996]). Accordingly, this waiver forecloses defendant’s excessive sentence claim *(People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal, we would perceive no basis for reducing his sentence. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**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 Quarterly Report of JACOBS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007 (the “Report")
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Robert L. Neal, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  The
      Company’s 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.













Date:
                January 22, 2008/s/Robert
                L. NealRobert
                L. Neal, Chief Financial Officer
www.gpo.gov

### §284s. Ninth replenishment

#### (a) In general

The United States Governor is hereby authorized to agree on behalf of the United States to pay to the Association $3,180,000,000 to the ninth replenishment of the resources of the Association, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations.

#### (b) Limitations on authorization of appropriations

In order to pay for the United States contribution provided for in subsection (a) of this section, there are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $3,180,000,000 for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 86–565, §21, as added Pub. L. 101–513, title V, §562(a)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2032.)

#### Eleventh Replenishment

Pub. L. 105–118, title V, §560(a), Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2425, provided in part that the Secretary of the Treasury may contribute on behalf of the United States to the eleventh replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations, and authorized $1,600,000,000 to be appropriated without fiscal year limitation.

#### Tenth Replenishment

Pub. L. 103–87, title V, §526, Sept. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 952, provided in part that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to agree on behalf of the United States to participate in the tenth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations, and pursuant to the tenth replenishment authorized $2,500,000,000 to be appropriated.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0 389 KELLY DEAN WORTHAN ,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. **ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT EXTENSION** On Appeal from the Montana Twenty - First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, the Honorable Jennifer B. Lint, Presiding GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Appellant, Kelly Worthan’s Motion for Extension until October 1, 2022, in the above - en titled matter is GRANTED. Date Justice of the Montana Supre me Court

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 23 2022

08/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0389
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 10, 2009 starting at 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

# ADDRESS:

                        Discovery Ballroom, Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW., Corner of 6th & C Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20024                         *(METRO: L'Enfant Plaza Station, Use 7th & Maryland Exit).*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site                         *http://www.rtca.org.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting. The agenda will include:
    - Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
    - NextGen Implementation Overview and Establishment of
    - NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.
    - NextGen Task Force Terms of Reference, Organization, and Leadership.
    - Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person                           ( print page 5719)                        listed in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section.                

Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2009.

Francisco Estrada C.,

RTCA Advisory Committee.

 [FR Doc. E9-1976 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDUARDO TREJO-MUNOZ, a/k/a Lalo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00060-RLV-DSC-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 4, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, Janet C. Thomas, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. 

Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Trejo-Munoz appeals his jury convictions and 262-month sentence for 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012), and four counts of possession with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Trejo-Munoz 

argues that the district court admitted out-of-court statements into evidence in violation of 

the Confrontation Clause, that the district court erred in calculating the applicable drug 

weight for Sentencing Guidelines purposes, and that Trejo-Munoz’s trial counsel 

provided ineffective assistance. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

First, we reject Trejo-Munoz’s Confrontation Clause claim, as the statements he 

challenges were neither testimonial nor admitted for their truth. See Davis v. 

Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 

(2004). We also conclude, upon careful review of the record, that the district court did 

not clearly err in finding Trejo-Munoz accountable for 4.5 kilograms or more of highpurity methamphetamine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2015);

United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review).

Finally, we decline to consider Trejo-Munoz’s ineffective assistance claim on direct 

appeal because the record does not conclusively establish his counsel’s ineffectiveness. 

See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Trejo-Munoz should 

assert this claim, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Id.
3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19613]



[[Page 41429]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-169 Virginia]


Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Availability of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage 
Project

August 7, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the 
Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2210), located on the 
headwaters of the Roanoke River in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and 
Pittsylvania counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Commission staff 
has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 
project.
    The final EIS contains staff's evaluation of the applicant's 
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Smith Mountain 
Project. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, 
non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the 
license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The draft EIS also may be viewed on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, under the eLibrary link. 
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket 
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c88e8d9a8b87a6a4a1a6ad9bbdb8b8a7babc88aeadbaabe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e585b4c5d51707277707b4d6b6e6e716c6a5e787b6c7d30797168">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and 
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Allan Creamer at (202) 502-8365, 
or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eefe2e2efe0a0edfcebefe3ebfccee8ebfceda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13727f7f727d3d706176727e766153757661703d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19613 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32



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 of Andina Acquisition Corp. III (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|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 operation
    of the Company.





|Date:
    March 27, 2019 | /s/
    Julio Torres                                     
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Julio
    Torres                                         
|                         | Chief
    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



| | /s/
    Mauricio Orellana                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | Mauricio
    Orellana                                    
| | Chief
    Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven E. Heeman, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 277]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered May 26, 2004, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In June 2002, defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated and sentenced to five years probation. Thereafter, in February 2004, defendant was charged with, and later admitted to, violating various terms of his probation, whereupon his probation was revoked and he was resentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### § 19.900 Adequate evidence.

*Adequate evidence* means information sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 67 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 67

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
            relating to voluntary prayer in public schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1995

   Mr. Stearns introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
            relating to voluntary prayer in public schools.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the inclusion of 
voluntary prayer in any public school program or activity. Neither the 
United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such 
prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3745

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Robert Lennox lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________ Submitted: April 12, 2024 Filed: April 18, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Robert Lennox appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a sex offense under a written plea agreement containing an appeal

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 10.9

 

	
 
    	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Isola Group
    


 

April 1,2012

 

Re: Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement

 

Dear Ray:

 

This letter agreement amends and restates certain provisions of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between you and Isola USA Corp. (the “Company”), dated August 11, 2008, as amended on December 5, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”). Please indicate your agreement to these amended provisions by signing and dating the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me.

 

Sections 2(a) and (b) of the Original Agreement are replaced in its entirety by the following:

 

2.             Compensation

 

(a)           As compensation for the agreements made by Executive herein and the performance by the Executive of his obligations hereunder, during the Employment Period, the Company shall pay the Executive, pursuant to the Company’s normal and customary payroll procedures, a base salary at the rate of $625,000 per annum, as such may be adjusted (but not below $500,000) from time to time (the “Base Salary”).

 

(b)           In addition to the Base Salary, during the Employment Period, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in the executive bonus program established and approved by the Board (the “Program”) and, pursuant to the Program, the Executive may earn an annual bonus (the “Annual Bonus”) in each fiscal year during the Employment Period, with a target Annual Bonus of 100% of Base Salary (the “Target Bonus”) up to a maximum of 200% of Base Salary, based on the achievement of annual performance objectives as set forth in the Program, subject to the Executive’s employment with the Company through the applicable payment date for any such Annual Bonus, which shall be no later than the ninetieth (90th) day following the end of the applicable fiscal year.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

 











 

All other provisions of the Original Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

Sincerely,

 

ISOLA USA CORP.

 

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   F. Gordon Bitter
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
I agree to the foregoing amendments to my Original   Agreement.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Raymond P. Sharpe
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
April 1,   2012
    
	
Raymond   P. Sharpe
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

2