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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1731 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require any creditor who transfers, 

sells, or conveys certain residential mortgage loans to third parties to 

retain an economic interest in a material portion of the credit risk 

for any such loan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2009 

Mr. MINNICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require any creditor 

who transfers, sells, or conveys certain residential mortgage loans to third parties to retain an economic interest 

in a material portion of the credit risk for any such 

loan, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Credit Risk Retention 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1731 IH

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT RISK RETENTION. 

2 Section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 

3 1639) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

4 subsection: 

5 ‘‘(m) CREDIT RISK RETENTION.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal banking agen7 cies shall prescribe regulations jointly to require any 

8 creditor that makes a residential mortgage loan that 

9 is not a qualified mortgage (as defined by such 

10 agencies) to retain an economic interest in a mate11 rial portion of the credit risk for any such loan that 

12 the creditor transfers, sells, or conveys to a third 

13 party. 

14 ‘‘(2) STANDARDS FOR REGULATIONS.—Regula15 tions prescribed under paragraph (1) shall— 

16 ‘‘(A) apply only to residential mortgage 

17 loans that are not qualified mortgages (as so 

18 defined); 

19 ‘‘(B) prohibit creditors from directly or in20 directly hedging or otherwise transferring the 

21 credit risk creditors are required to retain 

22 under the regulations with respect to any resi23 dential mortgage loan; and 

24 ‘‘(C) require creditors to retain at least 5 

25 percent of the credit risk on any non-qualified 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1731 IH

1 mortgage that is transferred, sold or con2 veyed.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1596 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 

gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2009 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. STARK, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, 

Mr. PLATTS, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. FARR, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. WELCH, Mr. HIGGINS, 

Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. UPTON, Mr. 

CARNAHAN, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mr. MASSA) 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 provide 

an exclusion from gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards. 

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 ‘‘Segal AmeriCorps 

5 Education Award Tax Relief Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1596 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF AMERICORPS 

2 EDUCATIONAL AWARDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 117 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified scholarships) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(e) AMERICORPS EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.—Gross 

8 income shall not include any national service educational 

9 award described in subtitle D of title I of the National 

10 and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 

11 et seq.).’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
ULTRADATA Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-01492) on Form S-8 of ULTRADATA Corporation of our report dated February 12,
1998 related to the balance sheets of ULTRADATA Corporation as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997, and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997,
annual report on Form 10-K of ULTRADATA Corporation.

                                                 KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Mountain View, California
March 31, 1998
# CE2009294EN.01012501.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 294/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 294/125

---

Wednesday 9 July 2008Batteries and accumulators and their waste ***I

P6_TA(2008)0344

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 July 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators as regards Article6(2) on placing batteries and accumulators on the market (COM(2008)0211 — C6-0165/2008 — 2008/0081(COD))

2009/C 294 E/45

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0211),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0165/2008),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0244/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

Wednesday 9 July 2008P6_TC1-COD(2008)0081

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 9 July 2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2008/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators as regards placing batteries and accumulators on the market

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2008/103/EC.)

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUSTIN LAMBERT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2772

[ March 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Daniel A. Casey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 7316 CF10A

.

Eric T. Schwartzreich of Schwartzreich & Associates, Fort Lauderdale; and Sheila Zolnoor of the Law Office of Sheila Zolnoor, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 617.2 Definitions.

The following terms used in this part are defined in part 90:

Act

Action

Age

Age distinction

Age-related term

Agency

Federal financial assistance

Program or activity

Recipient (including subrecipients)

United States

[49 FR 49628, Dec. 21, 1984, as amended at 68 FR 51383, Aug. 26, 2003]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 9, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10547

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00158-CV-CAP-1

CATHLEEN GARY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

DEKALB COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al., 

Defendants, 

VERNON JONES, CEO, 

THOMAS BROWN, 

GRAHAM, 

MOSES ECTOR, 

EDDIE MOODY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 9, 2008)
2

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

DeKalb County officials Vernon Jones, Thomas Brown, Eddie Moody,

Louis Graham, and Moses Ector appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss

Cathleen Gary’s complaint based on qualified immunity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The district court concluded that the officials failed to allege that they were

engaged in discretionary functions when they performed the acts alleged in Gary’s

complaint. We affirm.

The officials raise two issues for review. We have jurisdiction to review

whether the officials are entitled to qualified immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;

Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2003). We review de novo the

denial of qualified immunity and accept the factual allegations in the complaint as

true and construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. We lack

jurisdiction to review the officials’ argument that Gary’s complaint fails to state a

claim for relief. Koch v. Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283, 1296 (11th Cir. 2000).

The officials argue on appeal that they were engaged in their respective

discretionary functions for DeKalb County, but the officials did not allege in their

motion to dismiss that they were performing discretionary functions. See

Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1263–64 (11th Cir. 2004). 
3

The officials also argue that Cathleen Gary did not identify which official or

officials committed actions that violated her constitutional rights, but we disagree. 

Although Gary did not identify which official or officials committed acts that

violated her rights, when read liberally, see Thomas v. Ga. State Bd. of Pardons

and Paroles, 881 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir. 1989), Gary’s complaint alleges that

the named officials implanted a device in her body that violates her right to

privacy under the First Amendment and constitutes an illegal search and seizure

under the Fourth Amendment. No matter how fanciful Gary’s complaint appears

to be, the record does not support a finding of qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PAETEC Holding Corp., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

1. the annual report on Form 10-K of PAETEC Holding Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAETEC Holding
Corp.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ ARUNAS A. CHESONIS                                      
|                     |  |  |  | Arunas A. Chesonis                                          
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ KEITH M. WILSON                                         
|                     |  |  |  | Keith M. Wilson                                             
|                     |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 630.115 Does this part affect the Federal contracts that I receive?

It will affect future contract awards indirectly if you are debarred or suspended for a violation of the requirements of this part, as described in § 630.510(c). However, this part does not apply directly to procurement contracts. The portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 that applies to Federal procurement contracts is carried out through the Federal Acquisition Regulation in chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the drug-free workplace coverage currently is in 48 CFR part 23, subpart 23.5).
###### Editorial Note on Part 46

#### Editorial Note:

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of waiver regarding the requirements set forth in part 46, relating to protection of human subjects, as they pertain to demonstration projects, approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which test the use of cost—sharing, such as deductibles, copayment and coinsurance, in the Medicaid program. For further information see 47 FR 9208, Mar. 4, 1982.

#### § 46.124 Conditions.

With respect to any research project or any class of research projects the department or agency head of either the conducting or the supporting Federal department or agency may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of approval when in the judgment of the department or agency head additional conditions are necessary for the protection of human subjects.
#### § 81.85 Offer of proof.

An offer of proof made in connection with an objection taken to any ruling of the presiding officer rejecting or excluding proffered oral testimony shall consist of a statement of the substance of the evidence which counsel contends would be adduced by such testimony; and, if the excluded evidence consists of evidence in documentary or written form or of reference to documents or records, a copy of such evidence shall be marked for identification and shall accompany the record as the offer of proof.
### SERVED: MAY 31,2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0486



### NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

### lOi

### 7. ' .,. I

4 • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard ana considered on 

### October 3, 2012,.inclusive, in 

### Courtroom 341,1 

### U.S. Bankruptcy CouJ:t, FrankE. 

### Moss Courthouse, 350 

### S. Main Street, SaltLake City, UT 84101. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases will no be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pl**~lea** mgs may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier orpostal service.

· ard C. G dwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List_,_

1 The parties should confirmthe courtroomthe day ofthe hearing. 1

.......

.

### .

# .Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 .WilburWright Building-Suite2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Todd C. Emerson, 

### Respondent'sRepresentative Director

- Government and Legal Affairs SkyWest Airlines 444 South River Road St. George, UT 84790 TEL: 435-634-3530 FAX: 435-634-3505 Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL: 415-421-02500 FAX: 415-421-2560 Jeffrey M. Harper, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 FDMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485 & FAA-2011-0486 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536
§ 2522.415 How does the grant selection process work? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
The selection process includes: ( a ) Determining whether your proposal complies with the application requirements, such as deadlines and eligibility requirements;
( b ) Applying the basic selection criteria to assess the quality of your proposal;
( c ) Applying any applicable priorities or preferences, as stated in these regulations and in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability; and
( d ) Ensuring innovation and geographic, demographic, and programmatic diversity across the Corporation's national AmeriCorps portfolio.
[70 FR 39600, July 8, 2005]
Exhibit 99.10







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors of Cummins
Westport Inc.:



We consent to the use of our report, dated March 26,
2014 with respect to the financial statements of Cummins Westport Inc. as at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and for the
years then ended, which report appears in Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 40-F/A of Westport Innovations Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
such reports in the registration statements (No. 333-165812 and 333-168847) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-187154) on Form F-10/A of
Westport Innovations Inc.



//s// KPMG LLP



Chartered Accountants



March 27, 2014

Vancouver, Canada











KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadianmember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
§ 261.31 How many hours must a work-eligible individual participate for the family to count in the numerator of the overall rate? ( a ) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, a family with a work-eligible individual counts as engaged in work for a month for the overall rate if: ( 1 ) He or she participates in work activities during the month for at least a minimum average of 30 hours per week; and
( 2 ) At least 20 of the above hours per week come from participation in the activities listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The following nine activities count toward the first 20 hours of participation: unsubsidized employment; subsidized private-sector employment; subsidized public-sector employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and job readiness assistance; community service programs; vocational educational training; and providing child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program.
( c ) Above 20 hours per week, the following three activities may also count as participation: job skills training directly related to employment; education directly related to employment; and satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence.
( d ) ( 1 ) We will deem a work-eligible individual who participates in a work experience or community service program for the maximum number of hours per month that a State may require by dividing the combined monthly TANF or SSP-MOE grant and food stamp allotment by the higher of the Federal or State minimum wage to have participated for an average of 20 hours per week for the month in that activity.
( 2 ) This policy is limited to States that have adopted a Simplified Food Stamp Program option that permits a State to count the value of food stamps in determining the maximum core hours of participation permitted by the FLSA.
( 3 ) In order for Puerto Rico, which does not have a traditional Food Stamp Program, to deem core hours, it must include the value of food assistance benefits provided through the Nutrition Assistance Program in the same manner as a State must include food stamp benefits under subsection (d)(1).
[73 FR 6823, Feb. 5, 2008]
§ 75.504 Frequency of audits. Except for the provisions for biennial audits provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, audits required by this part must be performed annually. Any biennial audit must cover both years within the biennial period. ( a ) A state, local government, or Indian tribe that is required by constitution or statute, in effect on January 1, 1987, to undergo its audits less frequently than annually, is permitted to undergo its audits pursuant to this part biennially. This requirement must still be in effect for the biennial period.
( b ) Any nonprofit organization that had biennial audits for all biennial periods ending between July 1, 1992, and January 1, 1995, is permitted to undergo its audits pursuant to this part biennially.
§ 800.504 Judicial review. ( a ) OPM's written decision under the external review process established under § 800.503(a) of this part will constitute final agency action that is subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act in the appropriate U.S. district court. A decision made by an independent review organization under the process established under § 800.503(a) is not within OPM's discretion and therefore is not final agency action.
( b ) Judicial review under paragraph (a) of this section is limited to the record that was before OPM when OPM made its decision.