alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1A

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 114

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections for Federal

and State office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 1995

Ms. KAPTUR 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 relative to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections for Federal and State office.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 114 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to set reason3 able limits on expenditures made in support of or in oppo4 sition to the nomination or election of any person to Fed5 eral office.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. Each State shall have power to set rea7 sonable limits on expenditures made in support of or in

8 opposition to the nomination or election of any person to

9 State office.

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to enforce

11 this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41930-41931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal--State Compact Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes approval of the 2009 Amendments to the 
Stockbridge-Munsee Community (``Tribe'') and the State of Wisconsin 
Gaming Compact of 1992, as Amended in 1998 and 2003.

DATES: Effective Date: August 19, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula L. Hart, Acting Director, Office 
of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Amendment allows the Tribe 
to expand the pool of prospective lenders for construction or 
improvements to a Tribal gaming facility from State or federally 
chartered banks to include other federally recognized tribes.


[[Page 41931]]


    Dated: July 31, 2009.
George T. Skibine,
Acting Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-19887 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
§ 50.115 Final amount. ( a ) Treasury shall determine if, as a final proration, remaining insured loss payments, as well as adjustments to previous insured loss payments, can be made by insurers based on an adjusted PLRP, and aggregate insured losses still remain within the cap on annual liability. In such a circumstance, Treasury will notify insurers as to the final PRLP and its application to insured losses.
( b ) If paragraph (a) of this section applies, Treasury may require, as part of the insurer submission for the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, a supplementary explanation regarding how additional payments will be provided on previously settled insured losses.
( c ) An insurer that has prorated its insured losses, but that has not met its insurer deductible, remains liable for loss payments that in the aggregate bring the insurer's total insured loss payments up to an amount equal to the lesser of its insured losses without proration or its insurer deductible.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to California

# 									Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to California							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 23, 2023

Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, Mallory Stewart, will travel to San Francisco, Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and University of California, Berkeley, during the week of October 24-27.

While in the Bay Area, she will participate in industry and academic roundtables focusing on emerging technologies and arms control.  Assistant Secretary Stewart will also discuss shared priorities in defense and global security topics with officials at the LLNL and give keynote remarks to a workshop at UC Berkeley.  The workshop will examine the challenges and prospects for arms control and cooperation in the existing geopolitical environment.

Tags

Arms ControlBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityCaliforniaOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic Travel

Back to Top
#### § 54.6151-1 Time and place for paying of tax shown on returns.

Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, the tax shown on any return which is imposed under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E or 4980G shall, without assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the time and place for filing such return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). For provisions relating to the time and place for filing such return, *see* §§ 54.6071-1 and 54.6091-1.

[T.D. 9457, 74 FR 46000, Sept. 8, 2009]
HomeBiographies...Carlos F. Matus

# 				Carlos F. Matus			

															Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director of the Diplomatic Security Service						Bureau of Diplomatic Security												

				September 13, 2021 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Diplomatic SecurityDiplomatic SecurityState Department OfficialThreat Analysis

Back to Top
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul GOMEZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50312.

D.C. No. CR-99-00048-AHS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*515Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Raul Gomez-Pineda appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Relying on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Gomez-Pineda contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points, because the fact that his prior deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that *Apprendi*calls into question the continuing validity of *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). GomezPineda’s contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 413-14 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Feb.8, 2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.1


 


August 27, 2012


 


 


Encision Inc.


6797 Winchester Circle


Boulder, CO 80301


 


Mr. Fred Perner


By electronic delivery


 


Dear Fred:


 


The Compensation
Committee and Board of Directors of Encision Inc. (the “Company”) has considered and agreed to amend the Employment
Agreement between Fred Perner and Encision Inc., effective August 19, 2011 (the “Agreement”), as follows:


 


		1.	As a result of your ability to raise additional capital for the Company, the Company holds a stronger balance sheet and will
enable it to conduct sales, marketing and engineering initiatives for the future prospect of the Company. However, these initiatives
are an additional expense and may cause the Company to experience two consecutive quarters of net losses.



 


Under Section 9.2 of the Agreement, the Company may,
in summary, terminate you without any obligation that it would otherwise have for a termination without cause if the Company has
a net loss in any two consecutive quarters starting October1, 2012. The Board of Directors commends you for the capital raise and,
in fairness, and to show you its support, the paragraph that contains this provision will be stricken, in its entirety.


 


		2.	In January 2012, the Company implemented an overall cost reduction program. To show your support for the program, you elected
at that time to reduce your annual salary by $20,000, for an indefinite period of time. Under Section 6.1 of the Agreement, your
base salary is $205,000 annually. Although the Company’s Board of Directors believes that your salary should be returned
to the salary according to the Agreement, they accept your reduction in salary until such time that you deem it appropriate to
return to your annual salary as under the Agreement.



 






    	 



    	Mr. Fred Perner	Page 2



    
 


 


		3.	In order to facilitate additional incentives for employees, you have chosen to make available up to 50,000 of your existing
stock options. From time to time and at your discretion, you may surrender a portion of such 50,000 options to the Company for
cancellation. Upon such cancellation, the Company’s Board and Compensation Committee agrees, based upon its consultation
with you, to make new employee stock option grants under the Company’s 2007 Stock Option Plan in an amount equal to the number
of options surrendered by you.



 


Under Section 7.3 of the Agreement, you are entitled
to 200,000 stock options. The Company’s Board of Directors accepts your plan to reduce your stock options and you agree to
waive the 200,000 stock option requirement with respect to any options you choose to surrender for cancellation. Further, you understand
that the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors have the discretion to consider new option grants to you in the future as
part of its overall compensation planning and processes.


 


 


	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/s/ Robert Fries	 
	Robert Fries	 
	Compensation Committee	 


 


 


ACCEPTED:


 


	/s/ Fred Perner	 	August 27, 2012
	Fred Perner	 	Date
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1222 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1222

To require that travel awards that accrue by reason of official travel 
 of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives be 
               used only with respect to official travel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1995

 Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. Klug, Mr. Deal of Georgia, 
 Mr. Shays, Mr. Minge, Mr. Dickey, Mr. McHale, Mrs. Waldholtz, and Mr. 
   Castle) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that travel awards that accrue by reason of official travel 
 of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives be 
               used only with respect to official travel.

    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 ``Frequent Flier Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF TRAVEL AWARDS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any rule, 
regulation, or other authority, any travel award that accrues by reason 
of official travel of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives may be used only with respect to official travel.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 
shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry out this Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act--
            (1) the term ``travel award'' means any frequent flier 
        mileage, free travel, discounted travel, or other travel 
        benefit, whether awarded by coupon, membership, or otherwise; 
        and
            (2) the term ``official travel'' means, with respect to the 
        House of Representatives, travel performed for the conduct of 
        official business of the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 211.4 Implementing instructions.

Implementing instructions will be issued in Part IV, “Disbursing,” of the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual for Guidance of Departments and Agencies.

[41 FR 15847, Apr. 15, 1976]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 347.35 Computation of interest.

Retirement savings bonds under this subpart earn interest at the same annual percentage rate as securities issued to the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund) in the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. The Secretary calculates the G Fund interest rate pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8438(e)(2). The retirement savings bond interest rate compounds daily at 1/360 of the annual percentage rate. Retirement savings bonds will cease to accrue interest on the date of their maturity or call.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 134508 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, GERALD KREMPOSKI, as Personal Justices Representative of the Estate of IRENE KREMPOSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134508 COA: 275522 Gogebic CC: 06-000277-NH MARSHFIELD CLIN IC and MARVIN E. KUEHNER, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,

and

SUPERIOR HOME NURSING AND HOSPICE and ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Ju stice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for l eave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISM ISSED with prejudice and without costs.

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 26, 2007

Clerk
578 P.2d 189

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Terry Max MIKELS, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1089.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1977.

Review Granted Jan. 10, 1978.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by Philip G. Urry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

John D. Kaufmann, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of obstructing justice in violation of A.R.S. § 13-541(A), as amended. He was placed on probation for a period of five years and required to serve one year in the Pima County Jail as a condition of probation. Two points are raised in his appeal, neither of which merits reversal.

The case arose when appellant and one Dave Jacobson exited a car driven by Frank Morales and containing a fourth individual and pulled into a desert area near a 7-11 convenience market in Tucson. Appellant and Jacobson picked up some beer and began to flee the store without making payment. They ran to the car, apparently believing that no one was chasing them. However, a Sheriff’s deputy, on patrol in the area, noticed the commotion, exited his vehicle and chased the suspects. The deputy testified that appellant entered the vehicle last, that he jumped onto the running board and tried to enter the moving vehicle or pull appellant from it. A struggle ensued between appellant and the deputy. The deputy eventually sprayed the chemical Mace into the vehicle and the driver stopped the car. All four occupants were removed from the vehicle. Appellant broke free from this detention and ran to a residential area where he hid behind a car. Later that day while riding as a passenger in a vehicle, he was spotted by the deputy and subsequently arrested.

Appellant’s contentions are that (1) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that there is a specific intent required for obstructing justice, and (2) a self-defense instruction should have been given.

While appellant is able to cite some dicta in a few Arizona cases on the specific intent involved in this and similar statutes, we think the case of *State v. Bell,*113 Ariz. 279, 551 P.2d 548 (1976), supplemented in 113 Ariz. 326, 553 P.2d 1200 (1976), is dispositive of the issue. In *Bell,*our Supreme *511Court said that the crime of obstructing justice is a general intent crime. Therefore there was no error in refusing to instruct as to specific intent.

The trial court also did not err in refusing to give a self-defense instruction. Appellant maintained at trial that when he broke away from the deputy, he did so because he thought he was in danger of suffocating due to his asthma condition and the aggravation caused by the Mace spray. However, the theory of self-defense applies only to cases where the defendant is charged with an assault or battery or is charged with homicide.1

We have reviewed the entire record and have found no fundamental error.

Affirmed.

HOWARD, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.

1

. See also LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, § 53, p. 391.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 359.26 When are definitive Series I savings bonds validly issued?

A definitive bond is validly issued when it is registered as provided in part 360, and when it bears an issue date and the validation indicia of an authorized issuing agent.
#### Insular Racing Commission, Petitioner, *v.*District Court of San Juan, Respondent.

No. 1112.

Argued November 8, 1937.

Decided November 18, 1937.

*Diego O. Marrero*for petitioner. *J. Valldejuli Rodriguez*for- intervener, plaintiff in tbe main action.

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the Court.

" The-District" Court of San Juan first issued'a restraining order and afterwards a preliminary injunction against the jury of the Quintana Racing Park *(el jurado- del Hipódromo*Quintana) and the Insular Racing .Commission *(Comisión Hípica Insular)*to make them refrain from collecting a certain fine imposed upon the plaintiff and from preventing "him. from entering his horses *(ejemplares)*in the races that might take place oh the tracks of Puerto Rico. The Insular Racing Commission appealed from said decisions and it appeared at. the hearing of .this case that the appeal is well on the way to he heard by this Court.

The petitioner, however, originally thought and still thinks that the questions are imperative and that they ought to be decided at once, The application for the writ was pre.sented on July 30, 1937, and as that was practically the end 'of the term of this Court next prior to the summer recess-, the case could not readily he decided. We are perfectly satisfied at the present moment that given the state of the principal appeal; "this Court ought not to advance a decision by considering the certiorari.

;.,.In general, and the petitioner has-not convinced us that, this case falls outside, of ...the ;r-ule, the remedy by; appeal is *300
      *to he*preferred and this is especially true of a preliminary injunction from which an appeal can be immediately taken.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

Mr. Justice Cordova Davila took no part in the decision of this case.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Nedim  Calik

# 				Nedim  Calik			

				Local Law Enforcement			

Deceased				July 9, 2008			

**DS Public Affairs has been unable to locate the source of this image to seek permission for its use. Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have additional information**

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialTurkey

Back to Top
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1303

For the relief of John T. Monk.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 1995

Mr. MONTGOMERY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of John T. Monk.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF FROM FURTHER PREMIUM PAYMENTS

4 UNDER NSLI PROGRAM.

5 (a) TERMINATION OF PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—(1)

6 Notwithstanding any provision of subchapter I of chapter

7 19 of title 38, United States Code, John T. Monk of Jack8 son, Mississippi, may not be required to make premium

9 payments after the date of the enactment of this Act for

10 the National Service Life Insurance insurance policy for

11 which such individual was making monthly premium pay12 ments before such date.
2

•HR 1303 IH

1 (2) The termination of the requirement for premium

2 payments under paragraph (1) shall not terminate or oth3 erwise affect the coverage of John T. Monk of Jackson,

4 Mississippi, under the insurance policy referred to in such

5 paragraph.

6 (b) REFUND OF AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID IN EX7 CESS OF INSURANCE AMOUNT.—The Secretary of the

8 Treasury shall pay, out of any sums in the Treasury not

9 otherwise appropriated, to John T. Monk of Jackson, Mis10 sissippi, the amount equal to the difference between—

11 (1) the aggregate amount of the monthly pre12 mium payments by John T. Monk of Jackson, Mis13 sissippi, for the National Service Life Insurance in14 surance policy referred to in subsection (a)(1) be15 tween the date of the commencement of monthly

16 premium payments by that individual for that insur17 ance policy and the date of the enactment of this

18 Act; and

19 (2) the amount of insurance under that insur20 ance policy.

Æ
HomeBiographies...Daniel Ricchetti

# 				Daniel Ricchetti			

															Deputy Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy						Subnational Diplomacy Unit												

				January 1, 2023 -									Present							

Daniel Ricchetti serves as the Deputy Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy. In this role, he works with mayors, governors, and other municipal officials to strengthen local government engagement on the international stage and help bring the benefits of foreign policy to the local level. Previously, Mr. Ricchetti served as the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs and as a Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

Prior to joining the Department, Mr. Ricchetti served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for seven years. Mr. Ricchetti holds an M.A. in Security Studies from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and B.A. in History and Government from the College of William and Mary. He is from Arlington, Virginia.

Tags

State Department OfficialSubnational Diplomacy Unit

Back to Top