alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1351.24 What are the additional requirements that the Basic Center Program grantees must meet? ( a ) Grantees shall have an intake procedure that is available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to all youth seeking services and temporary shelter that addresses and responds to immediate needs for crisis counseling, food, clothing, shelter, and health care services.
( b ) Grantees shall provide, either directly or through arrangements, access to temporary shelter 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
( c ) Grantees shall provide trauma-informed case management, counseling and referral services that meet client needs and that encourage, when in the best interests of the youth particularly with regard to safety, the involvement of parents or legal guardians.
( d ) Grantees shall provide additional core support services to clients both residentially and non-residentially as appropriate. The core services must include case planning, skill building, recreation and leisure activities.
( e ) Grantees shall, as soon as feasible and no later than 72 hours of the youth entering the program, contact the parents, legal guardians or other relatives of each youth according to the best interests of the youth. If a grantee determines that it is not in the best interest of the client to contact the parents, legal guardian or other relatives of the client, or if the grantee is unable to locate, or the youth refuses to disclose the contact information of, the parent, legal guardian or other relative of the client, they must: ( 1 ) Inform another adult identified by the child;
( 2 ) Document why it is not in the client's best interest to contact the parent, legal guardian or other relative, or why they are not able to contact the parent, legal guardian or other relative; and
( 3 ) Send a copy of the documentation to the regional program specialist for review.
( f ) Additional requirements included in the funding opportunity announcement.
Original,

No. 5406.

#### Raymond J. Quinlan *v.*Emile R. Bussiere.

Submitted October 26, 1965.

Decided December 7, 1965.

*Raymond J. Quinlan,*pro se.

*Emile R. Bussiere,*county attorney, pro se, *William Maynard,*Attorney General and *George S. Pappagianis,*Deputy Attorney General for the defendant.

Wheeler, J.

Petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the defendant Emile R. Bussiere in his capacity as county attorney for Hillsborough county “to issue an order that the petitioner forthwith be brought to trial or that said three indictments be dismissed.”

The plaintiff is presently serving a term of not less than five and one half years or more than eight years in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, Massachusetts having been sentenced on September 23, 1963.

There are pending in Hillsborough county three indictments charging the plaintiff with false pretenses by means of certain checks. Detainer warrants have been filed by the county attorney to hold the plaintiff upon his release in Massachusetts for further prosecution in this state upon these indictments.

On May *4,*1964 the plaintiff filed a motion “for a speedy trial” in the Hillsborough County Superior Court. The motion was granted “upon the defendant making himself available for trial.” On May 15, 1964 a petition for a writ of “habeas corpus ad prosequendum” was filed in the same court. This petition was *528denied on the ground of “no jurisdiction.” On May 22, 1964 a motion was filed in the Superior Court to dismiss the pending charges for want of prosecution, which was denied and the plaintiff excepted. Counsel was appointed to represent the plaintiff, but an offer by this counsel to represent him in Superior Court has received no response from Quinlan.

The petition now before us was filed on August 31, 1965. Plaintiff in his brief contends that the defendant, county attorney “ . . . had the duty to have the petitioner brought to the jurisdiction of the Court, or at least respondent had the duty to make an attempt to have petitioner brought to the jurisdiction of the Court.”

In support of this contention plaintiff cites *Commonwealth*v. McGrath, (Mass.) 205 N. E. 2d 710*(1965). McGrath*is clearly distinguishable from the facts here. There the defendant was serving time in a federal prison and at a habeas corpus hearing the federal authorities offered to deliver him up if the appropriate costs were paid. Massachusetts refused and the court said that in view of these circumstances the Commonwealth must take the necessary steps to bring him to trial within a reasonable time or dismiss the indictments.

It should be noted that Massachusetts has never adopted an Agreement on Detainers Act as has this jurisdiction. RSA ch. 606-A (supp); *State*v. *Bugely,*103 N. H. 376. Accordingly in the absence of such a statute in Massachusetts, on the record before us the county attorney has no duty to proceed.

The order therefore is

*Petition dismissed.*

All concurred.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1598 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a higher rate 

of tax on bonuses paid by businesses receiving TARP funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2009 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin 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 impose 

a higher rate of tax on bonuses paid by businesses receiving TARP funds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The AIG Key Executives 

5 Bonus Accountability and Capture (TAKE BACK) Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HIGHER RATE OF TAX ON BONUSES PAID BY BUSI7 NESSES RECEIVING TARP FUNDS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Internal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986 (relating to tax imposed on individuals) is 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1598 IH

1 amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section: 

3 ‘‘(j) RATE OF TAX ON BONUSES PAID BY BUSI4 NESSES RECEIVING TARP FUNDS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi6 vidual who receives a TARP bonus during the tax7 able year, the tax imposed by this section shall be 

8 equal to— 

9 ‘‘(A) the tax which would be imposed by 

10 this section if the taxable income of such indi11 vidual for the taxable year were reduced (but 

12 not below zero) by the TARP bonus of such in13 dividual, plus 

14 ‘‘(B) the amount equal to the TARP 

15 bonus. 

16 ‘‘(2) TARP BONUS.—For purposes of this sub17 section— 

18 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘TARP 

19 bonus’ means the excess of— 

20 ‘‘(i) the aggregate payments in the 

21 nature of a bonus which are paid by any 

22 person if— 

23 ‘‘(I) such person (or any prede24 cessor of such person) received assist25 ance under title I of division A the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1598 IH

1 Emergency Economic Stabilization 

2 Act of 2008 during the taxable year 

3 or any prior taxable year, or 

4 ‘‘(II) such person acquired a 

5 major portion of a trade or business, 

6 or the major portion of a separate 

7 unit of a trade or business, from any 

8 person which received such assistance 

9 with respect to such portion or unit, 

10 over 

11 ‘‘(ii) $1. 

12 ‘‘(B) CONTROLLED GROUPS.— 

13 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

14 subparagraph (A), all persons treated as a 

15 single employer under subsection (a) or (b) 

16 of section 52 or under subsection (m) or 

17 (o) of section 414 shall be treated as one 

18 person. 

19 ‘‘(ii) INCLUSION OF FOREIGN COR20 PORATIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), in 

21 applying subsections (a) and (b) of section 

22 52 to this section, section 1563 shall be 

23 applied without regard to subsection 

24 (b)(2)(C) thereof.’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
4 

•HR 1598 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A13-09 

Proposed Final Audit Report on Illinois ) 

Republican Party ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on October 10, 2017, the Commission 

decided by a vote of S-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on Illinois 

Republican Party, as recommended in the Memorandum fiom the Chief 

Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated September 21,2017. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date Dayha C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 04, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 04, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0211. LEE MARTIN v. AMY KREMER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

11CV2551
EXHIBIT 31.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
            UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
  required  to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
  10-K of RAMP Series 2006-RZ3 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
  do not  contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
  material  fact  necessary  to  make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made,  not  misleading  with
  respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
  information  required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
  this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
  based on my knowledge and the  compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
  servicer  compliance  statements  required in this  report  under Item 1123 of
  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
  the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing  agreements
  in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
  asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
  compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed  securities required to be
  included  in this report in  accordance  with Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and
  Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been  included as an exhibit to this
  report,  except as otherwise  disclosed in this report. Any material instances
  of noncompliance  described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
  on Form 10-K.

  In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably  relied on information
  provided to me by the following  unaffiliated parties:  National City Mortgage
  Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.


Date:  March 26, 2007

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      --------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
#### § 2556.615 Who reviews a leader application and who approves or disapproves a leader application?

AmeriCorps reviews the application package for the leader position, considers the recommendation of the sponsor, and approves or disapproves the individual to serve as a leader.
§ 1622.5 Grounds on which meetings may be closed or information withheld. Except when the Board or council finds that the public interest requires otherwise, a meeting or a portion thereof may be closed to public observation, and information pertaining to such meeting or portion thereof may be withheld, if the Board or council determines that such meeting or portion thereof, or disclosure of such information, will more probably than not: ( a ) Relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Corporation;
( b ) Disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552): Provided, That such statute ( 1 ) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
( 2 ) Establishes particular types of matters to be withheld;
( c ) Disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
( d ) Involve accusing any person of a crime or formally censuring any person;
( e ) Disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
( f ) Disclose investigatory records compiled for the purpose of enforcing the Act or any other law, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that production of such records or information would: ( 1 ) Interfere with enforcement proceedings,
( 2 ) Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
( 3 ) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
( 4 ) Disclose the identity of a confidential source,
( 5 ) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or
( 6 ) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;
( g ) Disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed Corporation action, except that this paragraph shall not apply in any instance where the Corporation has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the Corporation is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final action on such proposal; or
( h ) Specifically concern the Corporation's participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the Corporation of a particular case involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.
**STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OW** **- 2009**  **- 0819** 
**DCN: SE0**  **3508 THE FOLLOWING**  **HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION**  **(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.**
```

[109th Congress Public Law 259]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ259.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 662]]

Public Law 109-259
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Francisco `Pancho' Medrano 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 2, 2006 -  [H.R. 4561]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8624 
Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 
``Francisco `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Francisco `Pancho' Medrano 
Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 2, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4561:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Apr. 5, considered and passed House.
            July 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 4.11

 

AMENDMENT TO
 BYLAWS
 OF
  CORE-MARK MID-CONTINENT INC.

 

Dated August 23, 2004

 

Section 2 of Article III of the Bylaws of Core-Mark Mid-Continent, Inc. is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

2.             Number, Tenure and Qualifications.  The number of directors of the Corporation shall be the number designated by the stockholders.  The number of directors constituting the entire Board of Directors shall be two, or such other number as may be fixed from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors or the stockholders.  Each director shall hold office for the term for which he is elected or until his successor shall have been elected and qualified. Directors need not be residents of Arkansas nor shareholders of the corporation.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Proposed Final Audit Report on National 

Council of Farmer Cooperatives Coop/PAC (A 11-26) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on July 23,2012, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on National 

Council of Farmer Cooperatives Co-op/PAC (Al 1-26), as recommended in the 

Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated 

July 17,2012. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date Shawn Woodhead Werth / 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
Exhibit
32.1




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 Future Now Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Adam J. Engel, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Accounting 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
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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated:  December
9, 2009




/s/ William E. SchlothWilliam
      E. Schloth, Chief Executive Officer and
                Chief
      Accounting Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2
 Date
 
   RE: CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD GRANT NOTICE (2004 NEW-HIRE EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN)
  Participant:
    
    «First_Name» «Last_Name»Date of Grant:[Vesting Commencement Date:]Number of Shares Subject to Award:
    
    «Number_of_Restricted Stock Units»Consideration:
    
    Participants Services
 Vesting Schedule: [TBD]
 Additional Terms/Acknowledgements:




---



##### 



Conexant Systems, Inc.  2004 New-Hire Equity Incentive Plan
 Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
 Grant Notice Agreement Company Plan Common
Stock Award
  1. Distribution of Shares of Common Stock  Original Distribution Date  provided, however, st th
 2. Consideration.
 3. Vesting
 4. Number of Shares
 5. Conditions to Issuance and Delivery of Shares
 1




---



##### 



6. Execution of Documents.
 7. Non-transferability.
 8. Award not a Service Contract
 9. Unsecured Obligation
 10. Withholding Obligations
 (a)
 2




---



##### 



(b)
 11. Notices
 12. Headings .
 13. Amendment .
 14. Miscellaneous.
 (a)
 (b)
 3




---



##### 



15. Governing Plan Document provided, however
 16. Effect on Other Employee Benefit Plans.
 17. Choice of Law .
 Severability.
 4
#### § 2507.15 Mediation and dispute resolution services.

If a requester receives an adverse determination on a FOIA request, they have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison or mediation services from OGIS. Congress has charged OGIS with resolving FOIA disputes between Federal agencies and requesters. OGIS's mediation services are an alternative to litigation, but do not preclude it.
### Devany. Dennis (OST) From: D.onald D. Adams [adamsdd@plattsburgh.edu] fJ;:':P-I·**.~jnl1.i\fuJSl)nDJll"'!fO.~1** Sent: ,Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:21 PM 

### 'v';r<\)t;!;(ffHf1 j 

### .111, . U •.. '. To: .

### ~'Uevany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST);

### senator@schumer.senate.go~'t\"'\i.LJ Cc: adamsdd@plattsburgh.edu Subject: DOT - decision on replacing Cape Air at Plattsburgh Air Base d.' . CO • ,k . (]1.1 J";i· Dear Mr. Devanyand Mr. Swanson, I have just read the "in my opion" in today's Press Republican, February 13, and would also like to send you myfeelings concerning Cape Air.. Iwould also like to statethat Iam in agreement with this article, and this is the reason that Iam writing to you. I have flown numerous times to Boston with Cape Air, the last time was theirearly morning flight during a rapidlyapproaching snowstorm, Iwas totally impressed with their service, their erring on the side of caution and the way they treated me and the other 6passangers. .. I have usedCape Airfrequently in mytravels to Boston and then on to Africa, and I have found them to be highly "customerfriendly", Iwould be most disappointed if you would even consider bringing a new carrier into Plattsburgh. You have hardly given Cape Air achance to show their capabilities and you are alreadythrowing them out for another airline, which bythe way does not have the superb safety record or service history. Iwill be very be very disappointed and upset that you would be considering replacing Cape Air. With very best regards. Professor Donald D. Adams Centerfor Earth and Environmental Science**SUNY~Plattsburgh**

1
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TCP Capital Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Howard M. Levkowitz, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul L. Davis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: February 27, 2018/s/ Howard M. LevkowitzHoward M. LevkowitzChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: February 27, 2018/s/ Paul L. DavisPaul L. DavisChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to TCP Capital Corp. and will be retained by TCP Capital Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.