alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
130 STAT. 840 PUBLIC LAW 114–217—JULY 29, 2016 

Public Law 114–217 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the sound recording and film preservation programs of the Library 

of Congress, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Library of Congress Sound 

Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act 

of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. SOUND RECORDING PRESERVATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) NATIONAL RECORDING PRESERVATION BOARD.—Section 133 

of the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000 (2 U.S.C. 1743) 

is amended by striking ‘‘through fiscal year 2016’’ and inserting 

‘‘through fiscal year 2026’’. 

(b) NATIONAL RECORDING PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.— 

(1) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 152411(a) of title 36, 

United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘through fiscal 

year 2016 an amount not to exceed’’ and inserting ‘‘through 

fiscal year 2026 an amount not to exceed the lesser of 

$1,000,000 or’’. 

(2) NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS.—Section 

152403(b)(2) of title 36, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘nine directors’’ 

and inserting ‘‘12 directors’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘six directors’’ 

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘8 directors’’. 

SEC. 3. FILM PRESERVATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION BOARD.—Section 112 of the 

National Film Preservation Act of 1996 (2 U.S.C. 179v) is amended 

by striking ‘‘through fiscal year 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘through fiscal 

year 2026’’. 

Library of 

Congress 

Sound Recording 

and Film 

Preservation 

Programs 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2016. 

2 USC 1791 note. 

July 29, 2016 

[S. 2893] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
PUBLIC LAW 114–217—JULY 29, 2016 130 STAT. 841 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2893: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

July 13, considered and passed Senate. 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

(b) NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.—Section 

151711(a)(1)(C) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by 

striking ‘‘through 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2026’’. 

Approved July 29, 2016. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.80 
 Third Amendment to the Nortel Networks 
 U.S. Deferred Compensation Plan 
 WHEREAS, Nortel Networks Limited (the “Company”) sponsors the Nortel Networks U.S. Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) and
has reserved the right in Section 9.3. of the Plan to amend the Plan at any time in its sole discretion; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Company has delegated to the Compensation and Human Resources Committee (the “CHRC”) of the Board of Directors of the Company the right to approve amendments to the Plan at any time in its sole discretion; and 
 WHEREAS, the CHRC desires to amend the provisions of the Plan concerning participation in the Plan for the 2009 Plan Year; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects, effective as of January 1, 2009: 
 Section 2.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “2.3 Cessation of Participation. Active participation in the Plan shall end when a Participant’s employment with all Employers that have
adopted the Plan terminates for any reason or when the Board or the Committee determines, in its sole discretion, to remove such Participant from active participation in the Plan. No contributions to the Plan shall be made with respect to Salary,
Bonuses or Commissions paid after either such termination or removal date. 
 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, (i) no new
Salary, Bonus, and/or Commission Deferral elections shall be permitted from April 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, with respect to the 2004 Plan Year; (ii) no Salary, Bonus, and/or Commission Deferrals shall be permitted during and for
the 2005 Plan Year, except with respect to Bonuses paid during 2005 for which the Participant elected a deferral prior to December 31, 2004; and (iii) no Salary, Bonus, and/or Commission Deferrals shall be permitted during and for the 2009
Plan Year.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is hereby executed pursuant to the resolutions
of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Boards of Directors of Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited dated December 23, 2008 as of the 23rd day of December, 2008, to be effective as of January 1, 2009, except as otherwise indicated herein. 
  

			
	 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED

		
	 BY:
	 	 /s/    Gordon A. Davies

	 NAME:
	 	Gordon A. Davies
	 TITLE:
	 	Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
		
	 BY:
	 	 /s/    Tracy S.J. Connelly McGilley

	 NAME:
	 	Tracy S.J. Connelly McGilley
	 TITLE:
	 	Assistant Secretary
No. 99-1571.

#### TrafFix Devices, Inc. *v.*Marketing Displays, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 530 U. S. 1260.] Motion of the parties for leave to file Volume II of the Joint Appendix under seal granted.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.972 Claims sampling procedures. ( a ) *General requirements.* The State will submit quarterly FFS claims and managed care payments, as identified in § 431.970(a), to allow federal contractors to conduct data processing, medical record, and eligibility reviews to meet the requirements of the PERM measurement.
( b ) *Claims universe.* ( 1 ) The PERM claims universe includes payments that were originally paid (paid claims) and for which payment was requested but denied (denied claims) during the PERM review period, and for which there is FFP (or would have been if the claim had not been denied) through Title XIX (Medicaid) or Title XXI (CHIP).
( 2 ) The State must establish controls to ensure FFS and managed care universes are accurate and complete, including comparing the FFS and managed care universes to the Form CMS-64 and Form CMS-21 as appropriate.
( c ) *Sample size.* CMS estimates each State's annual sample size for the PERM review at the beginning of the PERM cycle. ( 1 ) *Precision and confidence levels.* The national annual sample size will be estimated to achieve at least a minimum National-level improper payment rate with a 90 percent confidence interval of plus or minus 2.5 percent of the total amount of all payments for Medicaid and CHIP.
( 2 ) *State-specific sample sizes.* CMS will develop State-specific sample sizes for each State. CMS may take into consideration the following factors in determining each State's annual state-specific sample size for the current PERM cycle: ( i ) State-level precision goals for the current PERM cycle;
( ii ) The improper payment rate and precision of that improper payment rate from the State's previous PERM cycle;
( iii ) The State's overall Medicaid and CHIP expenditures; and
( iv ) Other relevant factors as determined by CMS.
[82 FR 31186, July 5, 2017]
#### Allie William CAMPBELL et al., Petitioners, v. James W. MAZE, Respondent.

No. 74-963.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1975.

Marjorie D. Gadarian, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

OWEN, Chief Justice.

Petitioners (defendants in a personal injury action in which plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal) seek review of an order taxing costs pursuant to Rule 1.420(d), R.C.P., wherein the court declined to assess attorney’s fees as part of the costs.

In support of their position, the petitioners rely upon the case of Royal-Globe Insurance Companies v. Indian River Gas Co., Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d 380.1 That was a split decision, and with due deference, we decline to follow that case. Instead, we adopt the view expressed by Judge Wigginton in his dissent, wherein he stated as follows:

> “It has long been the law of Florida that except where attorney’s fees may be al*235lowed in equity from a specific fund or property which may be lawfully charged with their payment, attorney’s fees may not be recovered except when specifically authorized by statute or by agreement of the parties.” (Footnote Omitted.)

We conclude that the petition for writ of certiorari is without merit and therefore it should be and is hereby denied.

Certiorari denied.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ, concur.

1

. Petitioners also cite numerous federal decisions, the citations of which we omit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           7,416
<SECURITIES>                                       224
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,831
<PP&E>                                           5,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,011
<SALES>                                         22,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,338
<CGS>                                            5,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (451)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the 22nd Anniversary of the Adoption of the Inter American Democratic Charter, and the OAS Democratic Charter Voluntary Group

# 									On the 22nd Anniversary of the Adoption of the Inter American Democratic Charter, and the OAS Democratic Charter Voluntary Group							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

September 21, 2023

This month, we commemorate the twenty-second anniversary of the adoption of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which states that “the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.”  The Democratic Charter serves as a model for democracy advocates globally, including through its emphasis on democracy’s importance to the social, political, and economic development of the hemisphere.

As we reflect on this milestone, the United States renews our commitment to safeguarding democracy, strengthening inclusive and effective governmental institutions, protecting the vital role played by independent civil society, and upholding the inherent dignity of every individual.

While democracy has made strides in the Americas since the adoption of the Democratic Charter, we cannot ignore the current challenges it faces, including from political polarization, corruption, disinformation, and transnational organized crime.  To address these challenges, the United States is firmly committed to joint efforts through the Organization of American States and to joint follow-up on commitments adopted at the Ninth Summit of the Americas hosted by President Biden in Los Angeles in June 2022.

We welcome the important step taken this week to advance the establishment of the new Voluntary Group of OAS Member States to Support Follow-Up on the Inter-American Democratic Charter, as mandated by the June 2023 OAS General Assembly.  This significant new effort will serve to strengthen regional democracies, counter threats to democratic institutions, and enhance the application and use of the Democratic Charter.  Through our participation in the Voluntary Group, the United States will work to engage all interested OAS member states in support of this open and collaborative effort.  Only by working together with transparency and mutual respect can the Democratic Charter continue to serve as an indispensable tool for the strengthening of inclusive democracy across the Americas.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonOrganization of American States

Back to Top
Cause No. 12-15-00082-CR 

DAVID MARK DAVIS II § IN THE TWELFTH 

Appellant § 

§ 

vs. § COURT OF APPEALS 

 § 

STATE OF TEXAS § 

Appellee § TYLER, TEXAS

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Appellant, David Mark Davis II, files this notice of change of address with the clerk of the 

court. 

Appellant currently resides at: 

11 Glenview Court 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

Effective June 4, 2015, Appellant's temporary physical and mailing address will be: 

905 N Loop 499 

Unit 525 

Harlingen, TX 78550 

Respectfully submitted,

David Mark Davis II 

Appellant, Pro Se 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00082-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

5/28/2015 1:05:10 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/28/2015 1:05:10 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Certificate of Service

I certify that on May 28, 2015, I sent a copy of Appellant’s Notice of Change of Address 

to all parties listed below as indicated. 

____________________ 

David Mark Davis II 

VIA Texas Official eFile System:

STATE OF TEXAS (through Counsel): 

Ed. Jones at ejones@angelinacounty.net
#### SANTAVICCA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. John L. CARLO, D. C., Appellee.

No. 79-2354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1981.

Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P. A;, and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*1140Kathryn Beamer and Richard D. Schuler of Schuler & Wilkerson, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial predicated on a finding that the evidence on one of the material issues tried was uncontroverted.

The appellant sued the appellee for breach of contract and the appellee counterclaimed alleging that the appellant had fraudulently induced him to enter into the contract. The agreement involved was one in which the appellant, a business consulting service for chiropractors, was supposed to provide the appellee, a chiropractor, with an “individualized practice management system” for his practice in exchange for a fee. When the appellee stopped payment on the fees due appellant this action resulted. The jury found that appellee breached the contract and rejected appellee’s claim of fraud. The trial court ordered a new trial, specifically holding that it was uncontro-verted at trial that the “individualized management system” which was promised never existed and was never intended to be delivered. We have reviewed the record and find the evidence to be in conflict on this issue. There was evidence presented by the appellant at trial to establish that it did provide the appellee with the management system promised, that appellee was not defrauded, that appellee’s earnings increased after he utilized the system, and that appel-lee breached his contract with appellant. That being the case, we believe the trial court erred in determining that the evidence on this issue was uncontroverted and in setting aside the jury’s verdict on that predicate. *Perenic*v. *Castelli,*353 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1211 (Fla.1978).

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed with directions that the jury verdict be reinstated and judgment be entered thereon.

LETTS, C. J., ANSTEAD, J., and STONE, BARRY J., Associate Judge, concur.
§ 483.370 Postintervention debriefings. ( a ) Within 24 hours after the use of restraint or seclusion, staff involved in an emergency safety intervention and the resident must have a face-to-face discussion. This discussion must include all staff involved in the intervention except when the presence of a particular staff person may jeopardize the well-being of the resident. Other staff and the resident's parent(s) or legal guardian(s) may participate in the disussion when it is deemed appropriate by the facility. The facility must conduct such discussion in a language that is understood by the resident's parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The discussion must provide both the resident and staff the opportunity to discuss the circumstances resulting in the use of restraint or seclusion and strategies to be used by the staff, the resident, or others that could prevent the future use of restraint or seclusion.
( b ) Within 24 hours after the use of restraint or seclusion, all staff involved in the emergency safety intervention, and appropriate supervisory and administrative staff, must conduct a debriefing session that includes, at a minimum, a review and discussion of— ( 1 ) The emergency safety situation that required the intervention, including a discussion of the precipitating factors that led up to the intervention;
( 2 ) Alternative techniques that might have prevented the use of the restraint or seclusion;
( 3 ) The procedures, if any, that staff are to implement to prevent any recurrence of the use of restraint or seclusion; and
( 4 ) The outcome of the intervention, including any injuries that may have resulted from the use of restraint or seclusion.
( c ) Staff must document in the resident's record that both debriefing sessions took place and must include in that documentation the names of staff who were present for the debriefing, names of staff that were excused from the debriefing, and any changes to the resident's treatment plan that result from the debriefings.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Historic Breakthrough on the Israel-Lebanon Maritime Boundary

# 									Historic Breakthrough on the Israel-Lebanon Maritime Boundary							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 11, 2022

Following years of mediation by the United States, the Governments of Israel and Lebanon today announced consensus on an historic agreement to establish a permanent maritime boundary between the two countries. This breakthrough promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and stability in the Middle East and will provide vital energy to the people of the region and to the world. Beyond delivering tremendous benefits to the Lebanese and Israeli people, today’s announcement demonstrates the power of regional cooperation to meet shared challenges in the Middle East and beyond. It also underscores the transformative power of American diplomacy.

This agreement protects the economic and security interests of Israel and Lebanon and marks a new chapter for the people in the region. I thank the leaders of Israel and Lebanon for their willingness to negotiate in the best interests of their people, and I thank Special Presidential Coordinator Amos Hochstein and his team for their tireless diplomatic work in bringing the parties together to accomplish this deal. It is now critical that all parties rapidly finalize the agreement and uphold their commitments to work toward implementation to the benefit of the region and world.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsIsraelLebanonMaritime MattersMaritime SecurityOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Designating Cybercrime Network Associated with 911 S5 Malicious Botnet

# 											Designating Cybercrime Network Associated with 911 S5 Malicious Botnet									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

May 28, 2024

The United States is designating three People’s Republic of China nationals for activities associated with a malicious botnet known as 911 S5 as well as three entities located in Thailand for being owned or controlled by one of these individuals.

Cybercriminals have used the 911 S5 malicious botnet to compromise victims’ computers and disguise their digital tracks, so that their cybercrimes appeared to trace back to the victims’ computers instead of their own, enabling them to commit widespread cyber-enabled fraud. As part of this scheme, 911 S5 has compromised approximately 19 million IP addresses and facilitated the submission of tens of thousands of fraudulent applications related to Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act programs by its users, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars.

We are taking action today to disrupt these cybercriminals as part of a whole-of-government action and in coordination with international partners. The United States will continue to act against cybercriminals who seek to exploit our financial system and defraud U.S. taxpayers.

*The Department of the Treasury action was taken pursuant to Executive Order 13694 “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities”, as amended.  For more information on this designation, see Treasury’s press release.*

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsChinaCyber SecurityDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonThailand

Back to Top
§ 493.825 Standard; Mycobacteriology. ( a ) Failure to attain an overall testing event score of at least 80 percent is unsatisfactory performance.
( b ) Failure to participate in a testing event is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event. Consideration may be given to those laboratories failing to participate in a testing event only if— ( 1 ) Patient testing was suspended during the time frame allotted for testing and reporting proficiency testing results;
( 2 ) The laboratory notifies the inspecting agency and the proficiency testing program within the time frame for submitting proficiency testing results of the suspension of patient testing and the circumstances associated with failure to perform tests on proficiency testing samples; and
( 3 ) The laboratory participated in the previous two proficiency testing events.
( c ) Failure to return proficiency testing results to the proficiency testing program within the time frame specified by the program is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event.
( d ) ( 1 ) For any unsatisfactory testing event for reasons other than a failure to participate, the laboratory must undertake appropriate training and employ the technical assistance necessary to correct problems associated with a proficiency testing failure.
( 2 ) Remedial action must be taken and documented, and the documentation must be maintained by the laboratory for two years from the date of participation in the proficiency testing event.
( e ) Failure to achieve an overall testing event score of satisfactory performance for two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
****

This chart presents 1996 Connecticut exports to the New Independent States of the former SovietUnion.  Data used to create the chart were collected by the **Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce**, With further analysis by the **University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research** (MISER).  For more informationcall Pat Sweeney at **BISNIS**, at (202)482-4655x20.
'95 export data for Connecticut
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page