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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2183

To amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce the size of grand juries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce the size

of grand juries.

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 ‘‘Grand Jury Reduction

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF SIZE OF GRAND JURIES.

7 Section 3321, title 18, United States Code, is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘Every grand jury’’ and all that follows

9 through the end of the section and inserting the following:

10 ‘‘(a) Every grand jury impaneled before any district

11 court shall consist of not less than 9 nor more than 13
2

•HR 2183 IH

1 persons. If less than 9 of the persons summoned attend,

2 they shall be placed on the grand jury and the court shall

3 order that an additional number of persons be summoned

4 to complete the grand jury in a manner ordered by the

5 court in accordance with procedures set forth in section

6 1866 of title 28.

7 ‘‘(b) An indictment may be found only if at least 9

8 jurors are present and 7 of those present concur.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Donald J. Torbert, Jr., certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PAB Bankshares, Inc;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
   a.) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b.) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c.) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a.) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b.) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: August 14, 2003

By:

**/s/ Donald J. Torbert**Donald J. Torbert
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the registrant)
-----Original Message----- 

From: pwchew@alum.bu.edu [mailto:pwchew@alum.bu.edu] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:46 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Priscilla Chew 

74 Newton St 

Somerville, MA 02143
-----Original Message----- 

From: tonyandsue@wildblue.net [mailto:tonyandsue@wildblue.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:55 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Tony Souza 

17033 Jonwes Ridge Rd. 

Grass Valley, CA 95945
§ 218.79 Alternative methods of protection. Instead of providing protection for occupied camp cars in accordance with § 218.75 or § 218.77, the following methods of protection may be used: ( a ) When occupied camp cars are on track other than main track: ( 1 ) A warning signal must be displayed at or near each switch providing access to or from the track;
( 2 ) Each switch providing entrance to or departure from the area must be lined against movement to the track and locked with an effective locking device; and
( 3 ) If the speed within this area is restricted to not more than five miles per hour, a derail, capable of restricting access to that portion of track on which the camp cars are located, will fulfill the requirements of a manually operated switch in compliance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section when positioned at least 50 feet from the end of the camp cars to be protected by the warning signal, when locked in a derailing position with an effective locking device, and when a warning signal is displayed at the derail.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, when occupied camp cars are on track other than main track: ( 1 ) A derail, capable of restricting access to that portion of the track on which such equipment is located, will fulfill the requirements of a manually operated switch when positioned no less than 150 feet from the end of such equipment; and
( 2 ) Each derail must be locked in a derailing position with an effective locking device and a warning signal must be displayed at each derail.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20576

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-648-1

--------------------

February 13, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Johnson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

receiving a firearm while under a felony indictment in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) is

unconstitutional as applied in his case because it lacks a

sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. Johnson concedes that

this circuit has held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) constitutional and that

the holding applies equally to 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Johnson

argues that we should reconsider our jurisprudence regarding the

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in light of Jones v.
No. 00-20576

-2-

United States, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000) and United States v.

Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000). “This court has repeatedly

emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open

to question.” See United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 156 (1999). The cases cited

by Johnson do not affect this determination and, therefore,

cannot serve to support a challenge to a conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 922(n). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 22 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 22

 To establish the position of Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism within 
                 the office of the Secretary of State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish the position of Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism within 
                 the office of the Secretary of State.

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

SECTION 1. COORDINATOR FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM.

    (a) Establishment.--There shall be within the office of the 
Secretary of State a Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (hereafter in 
this section referred to as the ``Coordinator'') who shall be appointed 
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    (b) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinator shall perform such 
duties and exercise such power as the Secretary of State shall 
prescribe.
    (2) The Coordinator shall have as his principal duty the overall 
supervision (including policy oversight of resources) of international 
counterterrorism activities. The Coordinator shall be the principal 
advisor to the Secretary of State on international counterterrorism 
matters. The Coordinator shall be the principal counterterrorism 
official within the senior management of the Department of State and 
report directly to the Secretary of State.
    (c) Rank and Status.--The Coordinator shall have the rank and 
status of Ambassador-at-Large. The Coordinator shall be compensated at 
the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of 
the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States 
Code, or, if the Coordinator is appointed from the Foreign Service, the 
annual rate of pay which the individual last received under the Foreign 
Service Schedule, whichever is greater.
    (d) Diplomatic Protocol.--For purposes of diplomatic protocol among 
officers of the Department of State, the Coordinator shall take 
precedence after the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, 
and the Under Secretaries of State and shall take precedence among the 
Assistant Secretaries of State in the order prescribed by the Secretary 
of State.
                                 <all>
```
§ 222.15 How does one obtain a waiver of a provision of this regulation? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, two parties must jointly file a petition (request) for a waiver. They are the railroad owning or controlling operations over the railroad tracks crossing the public highway-rail grade crossing and the public authority which has jurisdiction over the roadway crossing the railroad tracks.
( b ) If the railroad and the public authority cannot reach agreement to file a joint petition, either party may file a request for a waiver; however, the filing party must specify in its petition the steps it has taken in an attempt to reach agreement with the other party, and explain why applying the requirement that a joint submission be made in that instance would not be likely to contribute significantly to public safety. If the Associate Administrator determines that applying the requirement for a jointly filed submission to that particular petition would not be likely to significantly contribute to public safety, the Associate Administrator shall waive the requirement for joint submission and accept the petition for consideration. The filing party must also provide the other party with a copy of the petition filed with FRA.
( c ) Each petition for waiver must be filed in accordance with 49 CFR part 211.
( d ) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance with a provision of this part is in the public interest and consistent with the safety of highway and railroad users, the Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the Administrator deems necessary.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCFD for hypersonic propulsionAn overview is given of research activity on the application of computational fluid dynamics (CDF) for hypersonic propulsion systems. After the initial consideration of the highly integrated nature of air-breathing hypersonic engines and airframe, attention is directed toward computations carried out for the components of the engine. A generic inlet configuration is considered in order to demonstrate the highly three dimensional viscous flow behavior occurring within rectangular inlets. Reacting flow computations for simple jet injection as well as for more complex combustion chambers are then discussed in order to show the capability of viscous finite rate chemical reaction computer simulations. Finally, the nozzle flow fields are demonstrated, showing the existence of complex shear layers and shock structure in the exhaust plume. The general issues associated with code validation as well as the specific issue associated with the use of CFD for design are discussed. A prognosis for the success of CFD in the design of future propulsion systems is offered.Document ID19910012134Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsPovinelli, Louis A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-103791E-5689NAS 1.15:103791Meeting InformationMeeting: Workshop on Hypersonic FlowLocation: AntibesCountry: FranceStart Date: January 22, 1990End Date: January 25, 1990Sponsors:National Research Inst. for Information and Automation,Group for Advancement of Numerical Engineering MethodsAccession Number91N21447Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-62-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910012134.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 10(p)
                                                                   -------------

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR
                                     TO THE
                  SPIRE CORPORATION 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN


     WHEREAS, Spire Corporation (the "Employer") sponsors the Spire Corporation
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, Employer wishes to amend the Plan to comply with the automatic
rollover provisions of Section 401(a)(31)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 as amended by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001; and

     WHEREAS, the Employer is authorized to amend the Plan pursuant to the terms
thereof;

     NOW, THEREFORE, effective with respect to distributions made on and after
March 28, 2005, the Plan is amended as follows:

     (a) Automatic Rollover Provisions.

          In the event of a mandatory distribution that is made in accordance
     with the determination of benefits upon termination provisions of the Plan
     providing for an automatic cash-out distribution to a Participant without
     the Participant's consent, if the Participant does not elect to have such
     distribution paid directly to an "eligible retirement plan" specified by
     the Participant in a direct rollover (in accordance with the direct
     rollover provisions of the Plan) or to receive the distribution directly,
     then the Administrator shall instruct the Trustee to pay the distribution
     in a direct rollover to an individual retirement plan designated by the
     Administrator.

     (b) Reduction of $5,000 Threshold to $1,000.

          "Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, effective
     with respect to distributions on and after March 28, 2005, the present
     value of a Participant's benefit under the Plan may not be paid without his
     written consent if the value exceeds $1,000. If the value of the
     Participant's benefit under the Plan does not exceed $1,000, the
     Administrator may immediately distribute such benefit without such
     Participant's consent. The value of the Participant's interest in the Plan
     for such purpose shall include any rollover contributions (and earnings
     thereon) within the meaning of Code Sections 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8),
     408(d)(3)(A)(ii) and 457(e)(16)."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been adopted this 21st day of
November, 2005.


WITNESS                                         SPIRE CORPORATION

/s/ Michael W. O'Dougherty                      /s/ Rodger W. LaFavre
----------------------------                    --------------------------------
Michael W. O'Dougherty                          By: Rodger W. LaFavre
                                                Title: Chief Operating Officer
#### § 175.702 Separation distance requirements for packages containing Class 7 (radioactive) materials in cargo aircraft.

(a) No person may carry in a cargo aircraft any package required by [§ 172.403 of this subchapter](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-172.403) to be labeled Radioactive Yellow-II or Radioactive Yellow-III unless:

(1) The total transport index for all packages does not exceed 50.0 and the packages are carried in accordance with [§ 175.701(a)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-175.701#p-175.701(a)); or

(2) The total transport index for all packages exceeds 50.0; and

(i) The separation distance between the surfaces of the radioactive materials packages, overpacks or freight containers and any space occupied by live animals is at least 0.5 m (20 inches) for journeys not exceeding 24 hours and at least 1.0 m (39 inches) for journeys longer than 24 hours; and

(ii) The minimum separation distances between the radioactive material and any areas occupied by persons that are specified in the following table are maintained:

| Transport index or sum of transport indexes of all packages in the aircraft or predesignated area | Minimum separation distances | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Centimeters | Inches |
| 50.1 to 60.0 | 465 | 183 |
| 60.1 to 70.0 | 505 | 199 |
| 70.1 to 80.0 | 545 | 215 |
| 80.1 to 90.0 | 580 | 228 |
| 90.1 to 100.0 | 610 | 240 |
| 100.1 to 110.0 | 645 | 254 |
| 110.1 to 120.0 | 670 | 264 |
| 120.1 to 130.0 | 700 | 276 |
| 130.1 to 140.0 | 730 | 287 |
| 140.1 to 150.0 | 755 | 297 |
| 150.1 to 160.0 | 780 | 307 |
| 160.1 to 170.0 | 805 | 317 |
| 170.1 to 180.0 | 830 | 327 |
| 180.1 to 190.0 | 855 | 337 |
| 190.1 to 200.0 | 875 | 344 |

(b) In addition to the limits on combined criticality safety indexes stated in [§ 175.700(b)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-175.700#p-175.700(b)),

(1) The criticality safety index of any single group of packages must not exceed 50.0 (as used in this section, the term “group of packages” means packages that are separated from each other in an aircraft by a distance of 6 m (20 feet) or less); and

(2) Each group of packages must be separated from every other group in the aircraft by not less than 6 m (20 feet), measured from the outer surface of each group.

[[71 FR 14604](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-14604), Mar. 22, 2006, as amended at [71 FR 54396](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-54396), Sept. 14, 2006; [77 FR 60943](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/77-FR-60943), Oct. 5, 2012; [79 FR 40618](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-40618), July 11, 2014]
#### United States Gas Fixture Company of the City of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, *v.*Arthur Boehmer, Defendant-Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

December, 1910.)

Municipal Courts — Procedure — Pleading — Sufficiency — Oral demurrer.

Where, in an action brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, the complaint and answer are in writing, an oral demurrer to the answer is good.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Few York, borough of the Bronx, second district.

William Weiss, for appellant.

A. L. Geilich, for respondent.

Guy, J.

This is an action brought in a Municipal Court on a written complaint, to which defendant served a written answer. Plaintiff, on the return day, interposed an oral demurrer to the answer, which demurrer was sustained and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. The appeal herein is from said judgment, and from an order sustaining the demurrer. Section 145, subdivision 2, of the Municipal Court Act provides: “ In all cases where a written complaint, verified or unverified, is served with the summons, a written answer, verified if the complaint he verified, or a written demurrer, must be filed and issue joined on the return day.” It is contended by the appellant herein that the intent of this section is that a written demurrer must he interposed by either party to an action when written pleadings have been filed. This contention does not appear to be borne out by further examination of the statute. Section 161 provides that a counterclaim interposed by defendant “may he objected to on motion, or *demurred.to as if the counterclaim were an affirmative cause of action, set up*
      *619
      *in a complaint'*Section 162 provides that plaintiff may demur to a counterclaim or to a defense consisting of new matter on the ground that it is “-insufficient in law on the face thereof.” In neither of these sections is there a provision that a demurrer to an answer or to new matter set up as a defense therein shall be in writing when the answer is in writing, the only provision of this character being in section 161 that a counterclaim may be demurred to “ as if the counterclaim were an affirmative cause of action set up in a complaint.” The omission from these three sections of any provision 'that all demurrers to written pleadings shall be in writing, or that a demurrer to a written answer shall be in writing, is significant. It could hardly be an oversight, but indicates that the Legislature had in mind that the hlunicipal Court was intended to be a court for the speedy trial of causes, and purposely refrained from furnishing pretexts for unnecessary "delay.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Platzek and Gavegan, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed.