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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1791 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize certain aliens 

who have earned a Ph.D. degree from a United States institution of 

higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and to be exempted 

from the numerical limitations on H–1B nonimmigrants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2009 

Mr. FLAKE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 

certain aliens who have earned a Ph.D. degree from 

a United States institution of higher education in a 

field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 

to be admitted for permanent residence and to be exempted from the numerical limitations on H–1B nonimmigrants. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1791 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Trained in 

3 America Ph.D.s From Leaving the Economy Act of 2009’’ 

4 or the ‘‘STAPLE Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON 

6 PERMANENT RESIDENTS FOR CERTAIN 

7 UNITED STATES EDUCATED IMMIGRANTS. 

8 (a) ALIENS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT NUMERICAL

9 LIMITATIONS.—Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and 

10 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by add11 ing at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(F) Aliens who have earned a Ph.D. de13 gree from a United States institution of higher 

14 education (as defined in section 101(a) of the 

15 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

16 1001(a))) in a field of science, technology, engi17 neering, or mathematics and who have an offer 

18 of employment from a United States employer 

19 in a field related to such degree.’’. 

20 (b) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA21 TUS.—Section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Na22 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is amended— 

23 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘203(b)(2)’’; 

24 (2) by inserting ‘‘, or 201(b)(1)(F)’’ after 

25 ‘‘203(b)(3)’’; and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1791 IH

1 (3) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM H–1B NUMERICAL LIMITATION 

4 FOR CERTAIN UNITED STATES EDUCATED 

5 NONIMMIGRANTS. 

6 Section 214(g)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)) is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

10 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(D) has earned a Ph.D. degree from a United 

13 States institution of higher education (as defined in 

14 section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

15 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) in a field of science, tech16 nology, engineering, or mathematics and with re17 spect to whom the petitioning employer requires 

18 such education as a condition for the employment.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
**Exhibit 4.3.2**

**Form of**

**Amendment No. 1 to Warrant Certificate**

Warrant No.                                , issued to                                and dated as of                                , 2007 (the “Warrant Certificate”), ishereby amended, effective as of the date indicated below, as follows: 

1. The second sentence of Paragraph 2 of the WarrantCertificate is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

The right to exercise this Warrant expires onDecember 31, 2012 (the “Expiration Date”). 

2. Except as amended above, the Warrant Certificate shall remain infull force and effect. 

3. Governing Law. The laws of the State of Delaware (other than its conflict of law rules)govern this Amendment No. 1 to Warrant Certificate. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PAETEC Holding Corp. has executed this AmendmentNo. 1 to Warrant Certificate as of this         dayof                                , 2009.
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 1 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 2 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 3 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 4 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 5 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 6 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 7 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 8 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 9 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 10 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 11 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 12 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 13 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 14 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 15 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 16 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 17 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 18 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 19 of 20
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 Page: 20 of 20
FY 2012 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation Estimates tothe Congress

Note: These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables,please visit the Department's State Tables page.

Volume I

 ESEA Overview PDF (78KB) Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity PDF (1.4MB) Impact Aid PDF (1,.2MB) Education Improvement Programs PDF (2.0MB) Indian Student Education PDF (1.2MB) ) Innovation and Instructional Teams PDF (1.9MB) Supporting Student Success PDF (1.5MB) English Learner Education PDF (622KB) Special Education PDF (1.6MB) Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research PDF (1.9MB)

Volume II

 American Printing House for the Blind PDF (73KB) National Technical Institute for the Deaf PDF (172KB) Gallaudet University PDF (228KB) Career, Technical, and Adult Education PDF (1.4MB) Student Aid Overview PDF (232KB) Student Financial Assistance PDF (1.8MB) Academic Competitiveness Grants and SMART Grants PDF (135KB) Teacher Education Assistance Overview PDF (1.0MB) Student Loans Overview PDF (1.2MB) Higher Education PDF (2.7MB) Howard University PDF (222KB) College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account PDF (162KB) Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account PDF (301KB) Institute of Education Sciences PDF (675KB) Salaries and Expenses Overview PDF (553KB) Program Administration PDF (1.4MB) Student Aid Administration PDF (1.4MB) Office for Civil Rights PDF (474KB) Office of the Inspector General PDF (343KB) Performance Summary PDF (343KB)

Print CloseWindow

PrintCloseWindow

Last Modified: 03/31/2011

Page 1 of 1FY 2012 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Co...

11/22/11http://www2.ed.gov/print/about/overview/budget/budget12/justifications/index.html
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 08-5134 September Term 2008

1:06-cv-00663-JDB

Filed On: September 12, 2008

Thomas P. Tierney,

Appellant

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Federal Election Commission’s motion for summary

affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the surreply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of

the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers

Watchdog, Inc., v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant

has not satisfied the requirements for Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam
#### § 671.17 Cases of emergency.

The provisions of this part shall not apply in cases of emergency relating to the safety of human life or of ships, aircraft or other equipment and facilities of high value, or the protection of the environment. Notice of any acts or omissions resulting from such emergency situations shall be reported promptly to the Director, who shall notify the Treaty parties in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty and the Protocol, and publish notice of such acts or omissions in the Federal Register.
Editorial Note on Subpart 113.25 of Part 113
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart 113.25 of part 113 appear by CGD-94-108, 61 FR 28288, June 4, 1996.

§ 113.25-20 Marking of equipment. ( a ) Each general emergency alarm system fused switch and distribution panel must have a fixed nameplate on the outside of its cover that has a description of its function. The rating of fuses must also be shown on the outside of the cover of a fused switch.
( b ) Each general alarm contact maker must be marked “GENERAL ALARM” in red letters on a corrosion-resistant plate or on a sign.
( c ) A contact maker that operates only the general emergency alarm signal in crew quarters, machinery spaces, and work spaces must be marked “CREW ALARM” by the method described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) Each general emergency alarm signal must be marked “GENERAL ALARM—WHEN EMERGENCY ALARM SIGNAL RINGS GO TO YOUR STATION” in red letters at least 1 ⁄ 2 inch high.
( e ) Each general emergency alarm system distribution panel must have a directory attached to the inside of its cover giving the designation of each circuit, the area supplied by each circuit, and the rating of each circuit fuse.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58348, Sept. 30, 2004]
July 18, 2013

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Paul G. Applewhite 

Applewhite Aero

PO Box 46955

Seattle, WA 98146

Subject: Waiver Request from FAR 91.203 (a) (b) for an Unmanned Aircraft

Dear Sir,

Applewhite Aero is requesting a waiver from FAR 91.203 (a) and (b) for the following 

unmanned aircraft:

Invenio, Serial Number 20121, N486LQ

Invenio, Serial Number 20122, N486AP

Invenio, Serial Number 20123, N63AP

Due to the aircraft size and weight, it is not feasible to carry the airworthiness certificate 

in the aircraft and no cabin or cockpit entrance exists to display the document.

Applewhite Aero is requesting a waiver from this requirement.

Respectfully Submitted,

Paul G. Applewhite

President

206-762-5285
# Senate Floor Activity - Tuesday, March 11, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Tuesday, March 11)

H.R. 2019

S. 1086

S.J.Res. 32

S.Res. 378

S.Res. 379

S.Res. 380

S.Res. 381

## Executive Business (Tuesday, March 11)

PN1200

 63

PN1201

 64

PN1202

 65

PN1204

 66

PN1310

PN1327

PN1329

PN1330

PN1332

PN1335

PN1385

PN1387

PN1388

PN1389

PN1390

PN1391

PN1392

PN1393

PN1394

PN1395

PN1396

PN1405

PN1406

PN1407

PN1408

PN1409

PN1410

PN1411

PN1412

PN1413

PN1420

PN1422

PN1423

PN1424

PN1425

PN1426

PN1429

PN1430

PN1431

PN1432

PN1433

PN1434

PN1435

PN1436

PN1438

PN1439

PN1441

PN1442

PN1443

PN1444

PN1445

PN1446

PN1447

PN1448

PN1449

PN1450

PN1451

PN1452

PN1463

PN1467

PN1469

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-531.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Memorandum of Understanding Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Signed at Norfolk May 31, 2006 

 with 

Annexes 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 MULTILATERAL 

 Defense: Cooperation 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Norfolk May 31, 2006; 

 Entered into force May 31, 2006. 

 With annexes. 












NOTE: Only English language will be printed in this publication.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Presidential Documents 9645 

Notice of February 28, 2007 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to 

Zimbabwe 

On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, I declared a national emergency 

and blocked the property of persons undermining democratic processes or 

institutions in Zimbabwe, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). I took this action to deal with the 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States 

constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government 

of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions. These actions have contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, politically motivated violence and 

intimidation, and political and economic instability in the southern African 

region. On November 22, 2005, I issued Executive Order 13391 to take 

additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive 

Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of additional persons 

undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe. 

Because the actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, 

the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted 

on that date and on November 22, 2005, to deal with that emergency, 

must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2007. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the 

actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe 

and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 28, 2007. [FR Doc. 07–1001 

Filed 3–1–07; 8:49 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRO0GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 49 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations 

Board relating to a ‘‘Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. 

MARSHALL, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the National Labor Relations Board relating to a 

‘‘Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Na4 tional Labor Relations Board relating to a ‘‘Standard for 

5 Determining Joint Employer Status’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 49 IS 

1 73946 (October 27, 2023)), and such rule shall have no 

2 force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Original,

No. 5838.

#### Petition of Francis T. Lemieux.

Submitted November 7, 1968.

Decided December 31, 1968.

*Francis T. Lemieux,*pro se (by brief).

*George S. Pappagianis,*Attorney General and *Norman E. D'Amours,*Assistant Attorney General (by brief), for the State of New Hampshire.

Griffith, J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the judge of the Manchester district court. The allegations in the petition are as follows. In June of 1966 a warrant of arrest was issued against Francis T. Lemieux charging him with breaking, entering and larceny, a felony under New Hampshire law.

On May 23, 1966 Francis T. Lemieux after conviction of assault by the Maine Superior Court was sentenced by that court to not less than one and one-half years to not more than five years in Maine State Prison. He is still serving that sentence.

On November 17, 1966 a detainer was filed at the Maine State Prison based upon the New Hampshire warrant above referred to. On October 16, 1967 the petitioner was denied parole by the Maine Probation and Parole Board and the petition alleges that this denial of parole was a result of the New Hampshire detainer.

The Maine conviction was reviewed on habeas corpus proceedings initiated by the petitioner and upheld in *Lemieux*v. *State,*240 A. 2d 206 (Me.). A petition for habeas corpus was hied in June of 1968 in the United States District Court of Maine and is still pending. It does not appear in the present petition whether the petition in the United States District Court is concerned with the Maine conviction or the subject matter of the *259present petition. We have assumed that it relates to the Maine conviction and not to the detainer lodged by New Hampshire authorities.

The petition seeks to have this court require the district court of Manchester to tell the prosecuting audiorities that the petitioner desires to have his case disposed of without delay or in the alternative that this court require the district court to dismiss the action.

This state enacted in 1959 an “Agreement on Detainers . . . with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein.” RSA ch. 606-A (supp). The purpose of the statute was to secure the speedy trial of persons incarcerated in jurisdictions that enacted similar statutes. The prosecuting authorities under RSA ch. 606-A(supp) have no duty to respond to a request for a speedy trial filed in accordance with the statute unless the state of incarceration is a jurisdiction which has enacted similar legislation. The State of Maine has not adopted an Agreement of Detainers Act and a request for a speedy trial filed in accordance with our statute could not be granted. *Quinlan*v. *Bussiere,*106 N. H. 527.

*Dickey*v. *Circuit*Court, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla.) relied upon by the petitioner is similar to the case of *Commonwealth*v. *McGrath,*205 N. E. 2d 710 (Mass.) relied upon by petitioner in *Quinlan*v. *Bussiere, supra.*Both involve cases where the defendants were serving time in a federal prison and there was an offer by the federal authorities to deliver the defendant if appropriate costs were paid.

*Petition dismissed.*

All concurred.
§ 73.735-505 Acceptance of awards and prizes. ( a ) Employees may accept awards, including cash awards, given in recognition of a meritorious public contribution or achievement. However, if there is any indication that the award may improperly influence the employee in the performance of his or her offical duties, advice about the acceptance of it should be sought from a deputy ethics counselor. Also, an employee may not accept an award from an organization which the employee knows, or should know, has a contractual or other business arrangement with, or is regulated by, the principal operating component, or a sub-unit, in which he or she is employed or with respect to which the employee has official duties, unless acceptance is approved by the head of the employee's principal operating component. The head of the component may not approve acceptance unless he or she is satisfied that no actual conflict of interest would result.
( b ) Employees may generally accept trophies, entertainment, rewards, and prizes given to competitors in contests or events which are open to the public.
( c ) Employees may not accept gifts, awards, decorations or other things of value from a foreign government except as provided in § 73.735-506.
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 107.269 Annual inspection. ( a ) Your mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) must undergo an annual inspection within the 3 months before or after each anniversary date, except as specified in § 107.270.
( b ) You must contact the cognizant OCMI to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( c ) The scope of the annual inspection is the same as the inspection for certification as specified in § 107.231, except § 107.231(x) and (y), but in less detail unless the cognizant OCMI finds deficiencies or determines that a major change has occurred since the last inspection. If deficiencies are found or a major change to the MODU has occurred, the OCMI will conduct an inspection more detailed in scope to ensure that the MODU is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your MODU passes the annual inspection, the OCMI will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( d ) If the annual inspection reveals deficiencies in your MODU's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6504, Feb. 9, 2000, as amended by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49233, Sept. 25, 2009]
Exhibit 32

Form 10-K

|   | (1) | To my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                         |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ Christopher LeClerc |
| Chene Gardner                |
| Chief Financial Officer      |
|                         |
| Chief Executive Officer      |