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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2868 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2868

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent alternative 
                    teacher certification programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 1996

  Mr. Tejeda (for himself, Mr. Buyer, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Montgomery) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent alternative 
                    teacher certification programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3452(c) of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``For the 
period ending on September 30, 1996, such'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``Such''.
                                 <all>
```
Items to consider when drafting, re-drafting, and reviewing CDR partial 

exemption requests

1. All considerations have concluding remarks.

2. Statements are clearly conveyed as being those of the Petitioner or those of the Agency.

3. If the Agency utilizes a model estimate to calculate an endpoint, then the model version and 

SMILES notation are footnoted, along with a statement of whether measured values were used 

for estimating the endpoint.

4. The document is internally consistent with regard to statements made under each 

consideration.

5. All considerations are critically reviewed for logic errors, and each consideration is presented in 

a logical order.

6. Justifications are clearly articulated. For example, if one consideration is weighted more heavily 

than another, then the rational and justification need to be provided. Another example applies 

to accepting/rejecting: study summaries, studies in general, model estimates, or determinations 

from other governmental entities (e.g., FDA, ECHA, etc.).

7. Spelling/grammar/abbreviations/formatting/references (Stay consistent with the draft PKO 

petition.)
MEMORANDUM

Date: February 15, 2012

Subject: Stakeholder call about MOVES Transition for Regional Conformity Analyses 

From: Meg Patulski, State Measures and Transportation Planning Center, OTAQ

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0393

On March 7, 2011, a conference call was held to discuss stakeholder concerns regarding 

the transition to using MOVES for regional conformity analyses. EPA’s Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality hosted the call, and the following other agencies were 

represented on the conference call: 

 State air agencies from: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, 

Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, 

Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and 

Alaska

 Local air agencies from: Chattanooga, TN; Knoxville, TN; Nashville, TN; 

Jacksonville, FL; Dayton, OH; and Washoe County, NV

 National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)

These agencies requested additional transition time for using MOVES in regional conformity

analyses and any necessary revisions to state implementation plan (SIP) motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. State and local agencies were concerned about the significant software, operational and 

technical differences between MOVES and the previous emissions model, MOBILE. 

EPA expressed its intentions to proceed with a rulemaking to extend the MOVES2010 

regional conformity analysis grace period. All agencies strongly supported EPA’s decision to 

proceed with this rulemaking.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

p1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

147689

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147689

COA: 316389

Oakland CC: 2012-243580-FH

JOEL MARTIN SELMAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v 

Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of 

the Court, the cases having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the 

application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave 

to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the trial court’s ruling that allows the defendant to 

present at trial his § 8 affirmative defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act 

(MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq. Because the defendant failed to present prima facie 

evidence of each element of § 8(a), the defendant is not entitled to present a § 8 defense 

at trial. Hartwick, 498 Mich at 203. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit 

Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Hartwick or this order.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In  connection  with the filing by Wincroft,  Inc.  (the  "Company") of the
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  June 30,  2004 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  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)
               and 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.







                                               /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Danny Wettreich
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  August 12, 2004
#### § 582.401 [Reserved]
HomeAnticrime Rewards Programs

# 									Anticrime Rewards Programs							

**ANTICRIME REWARDS PROGRAMS**

The Department of State manages two U.S. government programs that offer rewards of up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of members of significant transnational criminal organizations and the disruption of other forms of transnational organized crime.  The Narcotics Rewards Program and Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program enhance the ability of the United States to combat transnational crime and bring major fugitives who operate outside the United States to justice. 

**Narcotics Rewards Program******

For more than 30 years, the Narcotics Rewards Program (NRP) has been an effective tool to assist the U.S. government in identifying and bringing to justice major violators of U.S. narcotics laws. The program supports law enforcement operations across the globe. Successes include the arrests of heads of drug trafficking organizations, as well as other criminals whose international drug trafficking activities have been their main source of revenue.  To date, the NRP has helped bring more than 75 foreign major violators of U.S. narcotics laws to justice, and the Department of State has paid over $130 million in rewards to individuals who came forward with information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of these criminals**.******Learn more>>>

**Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program**

Building on the success of the Narcotics Rewards Program, the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP) supports law enforcement efforts to disrupt and dismantle significant transnational criminal organizations. The program gives the Secretary of State statutory authority to offer rewards for information leading to the dismantling of transnational criminal organizations, the arrest and/or conviction of members and leaders who operate primarily outside the United States, and the disruption of their financial mechanisms. The program covers transnational crimes beyond drug trafficking that threaten national interests, such as human trafficking, wildlife trafficking, cybercrime,money laundering, and trafficking in arms and other illicit goods.**Learn more>>>**

**Related Tools**

**Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (****Kingpin Act****)****and****Transnational Organized Crime Sanctions Program (****E.O.****13581)**:  The Department of the Treasury coordinates with the Department of State on these sanctions programs aimed at disrupting and dismantling narcotics trafficking and transnational organized crime networks.  To date, over 2,200 individuals have been designated under the Kingpin Act and more than 115 individuals have been designated pursuant to E.O. 13581.****

**Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act)**. Learn more>>> 

**Transnational Organized Crime Sanctions Program (E.O. 13581).**Learn more>>> 

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 1005.22 Stay of initial decision. ( a ) In a CMP case under section 1128A of the Act, the filing of a respondent's request for review by the DAB will automatically stay the effective date of the ALJ's decision.
( b ) ( 1 ) After the DAB renders a decision in a CMP case, pending judicial review, the respondent may file a request for stay of the effective date of any penalty or assessment with the ALJ. The request must be accompanied by a copy of the notice of appeal filed with the Federal court. The filing of such a request will automatically act to stay the effective date of the penalty or assessment until such time as the ALJ rules upon the request.
( 2 ) The ALJ may not grant a respondent's request for stay of any penalty or assessment unless the respondent posts a bond or provides other adequate security.
( 3 ) The ALJ will rule upon a respondent's request for stay within 10 days of receipt.
# C_2005205EN.01000402.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-174/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 EC - Automatic suspension of voting rights in privatised undertakings)

(2005/C 205/08)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-174/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Loggi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 April 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005 in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in force Decree-Law (decreto-legge) No 192 of 25 May 2001, converted into Law No 301, entitled ‘Urgent provisions to ensure the liberalisation and privatisation of specific public service sectors’ (legge no 301, recante disposizioni urgenti per salvaguardare i processi di liberalizzazione e privatizzazione di specifici settori dei servizi publici), of 20 July 2001, which provides for the automatic suspension of voting rights attaching to holdings in excess of 2 % of the capital of undertakings operating in the electricity and gas sectors, where those holdings are acquired by public undertakings not quoted on regulated financial markets and enjoying a dominant position in their own domestic markets, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force Decree-Law (decreto-legge) No 192 of 25 May 2001, converted into Law No 301, entitled ‘Urgent provisions to ensure the liberalisation and privatisation of specific public service sectors’ (legge no 301, recante disposizioni urgenti per salvaguardare i processi di liberalizzazione e privatizzazione di specifici settori dei servizi publici), of 20 July 2001, which provides for the automatic suspension of voting rights attaching to holdings in excess of 2 % of the capital of undertakings operating in the electricity and gas sectors, where those holdings are acquired by public undertakings not quoted on regulated financial markets and enjoying a dominant position in their own domestic markets, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

o

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

1

---
HomeSan Marino

# San Marino

23 items

        -    Press Statement  		Republic of San Marino National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 3, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: San Marino	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: San Marino	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Direct Line Event  		Business and Investment Opportunities in the Republic of San Marino	  February 23, 2023 
        -    		Antarctic Treaty – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; San Marino, February 14, 2023	   
        -    Press Statement  		San Marino National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 3, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom:	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: San Marino	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		San Marino National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 3, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: San Marino	  May 12, 2021 

123next page

Back to Top
# Tibet

54 items

        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet) - Tibet	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at the State Department 2023 Losar Reception	  Uzra ZeyaFebruary 22, 2023National Museum of American DiplomacyWashington D.C. 
        -    Video Remarks  		Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken’s Remarks for Tibetan New Year (Losar)	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 22, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Marking Losar, the Tibetan New Year	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 21, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights and U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues Uzra Zeya Travels to New York City	  October 19, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Occasion of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s 87th Birthday	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 6, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Report to Congress on Tibet Negotiations	  June 30, 2022 
        -    Speech  		The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 26, 2022The George Washington UniversityWashington, D.C. 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: China—Tibet	  May 3, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Occasion of the Panchen Lama’s 33rd Birthday	  Ned PriceApril 25, 2022 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
#### § 700.14 Smoking.

Smoking of cigarettes, cigars and pipes is prohibited in all FLETC buildings and vehicles.
ex_231367.htm


Exhibit 10.7


 


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS, INC.


COMPENSATION SUMMARY - NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


Each of our non-employee directors is compensated for his or her service as a director through payments as shown in the table below:


	
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			Annual Board Retainers (for a full year of Board service):

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Chairman of the Board

				
			 

				
			$110,000

			
	
			 

				
			Other Directors

				
			 

				
			$50,000

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			Additional Annual Chairperson Retainers (for a full year of committee service):

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Audit Committee

				
			 

				
			$15,000

			
	
			 

				
			Compensation Committee

				
			 

				
			$10,000

			
	
			 

				
			Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee

				
			 

				
			$10,000

			



 


The foregoing amounts are paid in the form of our common stock based upon the average closing price of a share of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange composite tape for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately preceding the grant date.


 


Directors’ fees are paid quarterly, in arrears, and retainers are prorated based on actual days of service relative to a full year of Board service or the service period during which the fees were in effect. We also reimburse our directors for expenses they incur to attend our Board and committee meetings and for attendance at one director continuing education program during each calendar year or the reasonable cost of one year’s membership in an organization that is focused on director education.


 


Each non-employee director also receives an annual service grant of shares of restricted stock having a value of $75,000, based upon the average closing price of a share of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange composite tape for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately preceding the grant date. The shares of restricted stock are fully vested at grant for those directors who have reached age 65 and otherwise shall vest 100% on the earlier of the first anniversary of the grant date or the director’s attainment of age 65.
#### Ex Parte State of Alabama. (Re: Ricky Joe WHITENER v. STATE of Alabama).

80-34.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 19, 1980.

BEATTY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED-NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
#### § 596.303 Financial institution.

The term *financial institution* shall have the definition given that term in [31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/31/5312) or the regulations promulgated thereunder, as from time to time amended.

Note:

The breadth of the definition precludes its reproduction in this section.
§ 1004.80 QIO report to the OIG. ( a ) *Manner of reporting.* If the violation(s) identified by the QIO have not been resolved, it must submit a report and recommendation to the OIG at the field office with jurisdiction.
( b ) *Content of report.* The QIO report must include the following information— ( 1 ) Identification of the practitioner or other person and, when applicable, the name of the director, administrator or owner of the entity involved;
( 2 ) The type of health care services involved;
( 3 ) A description of each failure to comply with an obligation, including specific dates, places, circumstances and other relevant facts;
( 4 ) Pertinent documentary evidence;
( 5 ) Copies of written correspondence, including reports of conversations with the practitioner or other person regarding the violation and, if applicable, a copy of the verbatim transcript of the meeting with the practitioner or other person;
( 6 ) The QIO's finding that an obligation under section 1156(a) of the Act has been violated and that the violation is substantial and has occurred in a substantial number of cases or is gross and flagrant;
( 7 ) A case-by-case analysis and evaluation of any additional information provided by the practitioner or other person in response to the QIO's initial finding;
( 8 ) A copy of the CAP that was developed and documentation of the results of such plan;
( 9 ) The number of admissions by the practitioner or other person reviewed by the QIO during the period in which the violation(s) were identified;
( 10 ) The professional qualifications of the QIO's reviewers; and
( 11 ) The QIO's sanction recommendation.
( c ) *QIO recommendation.* The QIO must specify in its report— ( 1 ) The sanction recommended;
( 2 ) The amount of the monetary penalty recommended, if applicable;
( 3 ) The period of exclusion recommended, if applicable;
( 4 ) The availability of alternative sources of services in the community, with supporting information; and
( 5 ) The county or counties in which the practitioner or other person furnishes services.
[60 FR 63640, Dec. 12, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 23143, Apr. 29, 1997]
In the Senate of the United States,

July 25, 1996.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2980) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 18, United

States Code, with respect to stalking’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Page 2, after the item following line 11 insert:

1 SEC. 3. GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS COMMITTING

2 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following

5 new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(33) The term ‘crime involving domestic vio7 lence’ means a felony or misdemeanor crime of vio8 lence, regardless of length, term, or manner of punish9 ment, committed by a current or former spouse, par10 ent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with

11 whom the victim shares a child in common, by a per-
2

HR 2980 EAS

1 son who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the

2 victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a per3 son similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guard4 ian of the victim under the domestic or family vio5 lence laws of the jurisdiction in which such felony or

6 misdemeanor was committed.’’.

7 (b) UNLAWFUL ACTS.—Section 922 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in subsection (d)—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of para11 graph (7);

12 (B) by striking the period at the end of

13 paragraph (8) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

14 (C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol15 lowing new paragraph:

16 ‘‘(9) has been convicted in any court of any

17 crime involving domestic violence where the individ18 ual has been represented by counsel or knowingly and

19 intelligently waived the right to counsel.’’;

20 (2) in subsection (g)—

21 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of para22 graph (7);

23 (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the

24 comma and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3

HR 2980 EAS

1 (C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol2 lowing new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(9) has been convicted in any court of any

4 crime involving domestic violence where the individ5 ual has been represented by counsel or knowingly and

6 intelligently waived the right to counsel,’’; and

7 (3) in subsection (s)(3)(B)(i), by inserting before

8 the semicolon the following: ‘‘and has not been con9 victed in any court of any crime involving domestic

10 violence where the individual has been represented by

11 counsel or knowingly and intelligently waived the

12 right to counsel’’.

13 (c) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—Section 926(a) of title

14 18, United States Code, is amended—

15 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

16 (2);

17 (2) by striking the period at the end of para18 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

19 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the follow20 ing new paragraph:

21 ‘‘(4) regulations providing for the effective re22 ceipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or
4

HR 2980 EAS

1 seized from persons described in subsection (d)(9) or

2 (g)(9) of section 922.’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2980

AMENDMENT