alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U.S. Central Command Hires Chief Technology Officer

/ Published Oct. 4, 2022

October 4, 2022

Release Number 20221004-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. –**Today, U.S. Central Command hired technology leader Schuyler Moore to serve as the organization’s first-ever Chief Technology Officer, a position from which she will lead innovation efforts across the organization’s headquarters, components, and subordinate units.

As the Director of Science and Technology for the Defense Innovation Board from 2019 to 2021, Schuyler provided recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on the military application of cyber capabilities, Artificial Intelligence, and biotechnology. In 2019, her report on 5G technology was presented to the White House and Congress.

“Miss Moore brings an impressive resumé as a Forbes “30 Under 30” selectee for technology, an analyst in the aerospace technology industry, and a technology advisor in data integration and defense acquisition trends,” said Col. Joe Buccino, USCENTCOM spokesman.

A graduate of Harvard and Georgetown universities, Schuyler also served as a senior advisor on technology and policy in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I am honored by the opportunity and look forward to helping drive the rapid integration of disruptive technology, generating new concepts of technology use, and growing the Culture of Innovation across USCENTCOM,” Schuyler said. “Given the evolving threat landscape and advances in critical fields like robotics and AI, there is a great urgency to innovate rapidly. USCENTCOM is poised to accelerate capability through experimentation and innovation in this critical moment.”

“Our strategic approach – summarized by ‘People, Partners, and Innovation,’ relies on bringing in the best talent from across the military and from civilian industry and then empowering that talent,” said General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command. “Schuyler Moore is a phenomenal talent with a rare set of skills in the employment of critical technology. She will help us lead on innovation and experimentation for the region.”

-30-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://www.treasury.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action(s)

On August 17, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
      ( print page 57177)    
      ( print page 57178)    
Dated: August 17, 2023.

Andrea M. Gacki,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2023-18038 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
# April 26: Military Airstrikes CAContinue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq

/ Published April 27, 2015

April 26, 2015

Release # 20150426.1FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq between 8 a.m., April 25, and 8 a.m., April 26, local time.  In Syria, Coalition military forces conducted three airstrikes using fighter and attack aircraft.  Separately in Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted 17 airstrikes approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense using fighter, attack, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists.

“The Coalition continues to degrade Daesh military capabilities across the region,” said Col. Wayne Marotto, CJTF-OIR Chief of Public Affairs. “By working closely with our partners in Iraq and Syria, these strikes are contributing to their success.” 

The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release:

**Syria**

 Near Al Hasakah, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL fighting position.

 Near Dayr Az Zawr, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

 Near Kobani, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL fighting position.

**Iraq**

 Near Al Hawayjah, three airstrikes struck two ISIL staging areas and an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.

 Near Bayji, six airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units, destroying two ISIL VBIEDs, two ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL bunkers, two ISIL structures, an ISIL mortar tube and an ISIL warehouse.

 Near Fallujah, five airstrikes struck four ISIL tactical units, destroying an ISIL armored personnel carrier, an ISIL dump truck, an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL heavy machine gun.

 Near Mosul, an airstrike struck an ISIL large tactical unit, destroying an ISIL weapons cache and an ISIL tunnel system.

 Near Ramadi, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.

Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely.

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and U.S.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 404 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 2, 2002.
    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of 
Thursday, May 2, 2002, for the Speaker to entertain a motion that the House 
suspend the rules relating to the resolution (H. Res. 392) expressing solidarity 
with Israel in its fight against terrorism. If the Speaker entertains such 
motion, debate under clause 1(c) of rule XV shall be extended to one hour.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

November 14, 2002


              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 Form 10-Q of Marex, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A. Schwedel, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal 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, as amended; and

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


                                  By: /s/ DAVID A. SCHWEDEL
                                  Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                  Accounting Officer
                                  November 14, 2002
From: Jesse Hackey [mailto:jessehackey@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:45 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

I believe that it would be a travesty of large proportions if the government were to start 

managing 401(k)s. 

Not only has the government shown itself to be a poor financial manager, but also this kind of 

intrusion into the lives of American citizens is a violation of the Constitution.

Please do not further involve the government into the lives of honest, hard-working citizens; 

let them live their own lives and manage their own money.

Jesse Hackey

jessehackey@gmail.com
PUBLIC LAW 109–70—SEPT. 21, 2005 119 STAT. 2009

Public Law 109–70

109th Congress

An Act

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawaii Water Resources Act

of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended—

(1) by redesignating the second section 1636 (as added

by section 1(b) of Public Law 108–316 (118 Stat. 1202)) as

section 1637; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 1638. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS.

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may—

‘‘(1) in cooperation with the Board of Water Supply, City

and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, participate in the design,

planning, and construction of a project in Kalaeloa, Hawaii,

to desalinate and distribute seawater for direct potable use

within the service area of the Board;

‘‘(2) in cooperation with the County of Hawaii Department

of Environmental Management, Hawaii, participate in the

design, planning, and construction of facilities in Kealakehe,

Hawaii, for the treatment and distribution of recycled water

and for environmental purposes within the County; and

‘‘(3) in cooperation with the County of Maui Wastewater

Reclamation Division, Hawaii, participate in the design, planning, and construction of, and acquire land for, facilities in

Lahaina, Hawaii, for the distribution of recycled water from

the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility for non-potable

uses within the County.

‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of a project

described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total

cost of the project.

‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary shall not

be used for the operation and maintenance of a project described

in subsection (a).

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized

to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this

section.’’.

43 USC 390h–20.

43 USC

390h–17a,

390h–19.

43 USC 390h

note.

Hawaii Water

Resources Act of

2005.

Sept. 21, 2005

[S. 264]

119 STAT. 2010 PUBLIC LAW 109–70—SEPT. 21, 2005

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 264:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–33 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

July 26, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 13, considered and passed House.

Æ

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections in section

2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act

of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) is amended by striking the item

relating to the second section 1636 (as added by section 2 of Public

Law 108–316 (118 Stat. 1202)) and inserting the following:

‘‘Sec. 1637. Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project.

‘‘Sec. 1638. Hawaii reclamation projects.’’.

Approved September 21, 2005.
Exhibit 99.2





                           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 Quarterly Report of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.
("PNBC") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Todd D.
Fanning, Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer of PNBC, certify, 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 my 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 represents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of PNBC.




/s/ Todd D. Fanning
---------------------------------------------------




Todd D. Fanning
Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2002





                                       20
<PAGE>   1








                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

      Listed below, as of January 3, 1997, are the significant subsidiaries of
the Company and their jurisdictions of organization. All of such subsidiaries
are either directly of indirectly wholly-owned by the Company. Other
subsidiaries of the Company have been omitted because, considered in the
aggregates they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                          Jurisdiction of
   Name of Subsidiary                       Organization
   ------------------                       ------------

100% Owned
----------

Orange County Metal Works                 California
Cylinder City, Inc.                       Minnesota
Commercial Hydraulics Pty., Ltd.          Australia
Commercial Intertech do Brasil, Ltda.     Brazil
Commercial Intertech s.r.o.               Czech Republic
Commercial Intertech Limited              England
Astron S.A.R.L.                           France
Sachsenhydraulik Chemnitz GmbH            Germany
Commercial Intertech S.A.                 Luxembourg
Astron Building Systems
      (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.                 Peoples Republic of China

Other:  (see Note A)
--------------------

Hydraulik Rochlitz GmbH                   Germany
Commercial Intertech GmbH                 Germany
Ultra Hydraulics Ltd.                     England


NOTE A Commercial Intertech GmbH is 100% owned by Hydraulik Rochlitz GmbH, which
is 100% owned by Sachsenhydraulik Chemnitz GmbH.

         Ultra Hydraulics Ltd. is 100% owned by Commercial Intertech Limited.

                                        1
#### Richard L. Whiting, Appellant v. Peter Hood and another, Respondents.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted before another referee, costs to abide the event. Opinion by Bradley, J.
#### Marietta A. Morse, Respondent, v. William Ingraham, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court of Oswego county affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
Belknap,

Dec., 1894.

#### Lamprey *& a. v.*Eastman.

A grantor of land is not liable to a purchaser of standing timber who agreed to cut the same before the date of the conveyance, and was prevented from so doing by the grantees after the expiration of the time limited.

Assumpsit, for money paid for standing timber, on the ground of a partial failure of consideration, with a count in case for depriving the plaintiffs of a part of the timber by conveying the land. Facts found by the court.

December 17, 1889, the defendant, by a contract in writing not under seal, sold to the plaintiffs the pine and oak timber then standing on his farm, to be cut before April 1, 1891, for $600. which the plaintiffs paid. Before February 27, 1891, the *199greater part of the timber had been cut. On that day the defendant executed a deed of the land to Abbie II. Lindsey and Harriet L. Smith, who knew the timber was sold to the plaintiffs and that a portion of it had not been cut. The deed was not delivered to them until April 7, 1891. In March, 1891, the plaintiffs obtained from Mr. Lindsey (Abbie’s husband) permission to cut the remaining timber during the next winter (1891-92). But for this permission they would have cut it all before April 1, 1891. The plaintiffs began cutting the next winter, but were stopped by the defendant’s grantees, who denied Lindsey’s authority to extend the time, brought trespass against them for what they had cut, and recovered a judgment for damages.

*Jevoett ¿- Plummer,*for the plaintiffs.

*Jewell, Stone, Owen Martin,*for the defendant.

Carpenter, J.

There was no failure of consideration. The plaintiffs received all they bargained and paid for *[Paris*v. *Bryan,*6 B. & C. 651), viz., the right to cut all the pine and oak timber on the farm that they chose to cut before April 1, 1891. It is immaterial that by the contract no property in the standing timber passed to the plaintiffs *(Kingsley*v. *Holbrook,*45 N. H. 313, 320), and that the agreement operated only as a license revocable at the defendant’s pleasure. *Howe*v. *Batchelder,*49 N. H. 204; *Abbott*v. *Baldwin,*61 N. H. 583, 586. It was not revoked. It afforded the plaintiffs full protection for all they did under it. It was not the defendant’s but their own fault that they did not take the remaining timber within the time limited. He did nothing to prevent them. His deed to Lindsey and Smith had no effect until its delivery, April 7. He is not responsible for the result of the plaintiffs’ negotiation with the husband of one of the grantees for an extension of the time.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
éS1T7L
MICHAEL G. GRIMM 512 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

137m Distnict, New York ‘WasHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-3371

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265 New Dorp LANE, 2ND FLOOR

Congress of the Guited States ae
House of Representatives Broo NY 11288
Washington, BE 20515-3213 =

ASSISTANT WHIP

June 24, 2011 ae 1a

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis 2 =

G3SAIS035u

U.S. Department of Labor : ae
Francis Perkins Building ca
Third Street and Constitution Avenue, NW ad

Washington, DC 20210
Dear Secretary Solis,

Iam writing in regard to the Department of Labor’s proposed change to the term “fiduciary” with respect to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERSIA) plans. I am very concerned that this proposed change will have serious negative
consequences for small retail investors saving for retirement.

Currently retail investors saving for retirement in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) have a wide array of options to
choose from in determining which level of service they would prefer to receive from their investment firm. Some investors
chose to make most of their decisions independently, receiving only minimal advice from an investment professional. Others
choose to have a closer relationship with their investment advisor, which often confers higher costs.

If the proposed rule is put into effect as currently written, investors with small accounts could find themselves choosing
between two unappealing options; they could either chose to have a standard brokerage arrangement, where there will have to
make all investment decisions independently, or enter into a fiduciary arrangement with their investment professional, an
option that may be extremely cost prohibitive. This could have the effect of cutting off small investors from the advice they
need to make good investing decisions at a reasonable cost.

In addition, I am also concerned that the proposed rule could have a serious adverse effect on small independent advisor
firms. I believe that the proposed rule would force these small businesses in an untenable position; they would either have to
charge all of their IRA customers a higher fee to provide a fiduciary standard of care or lose a large portion of their client
base, putting their entire practice in jeopardy.

It is with these concerns in mind that I urge you to take more time to study the effects of this proposed rule, specifically
regarding how it will affect IRA investors and small businesses. Furthermore, I believe working closely with the Securities
and Exchange Commission would be insightful as they work to modernize the definition of fiduciary for broker dealers and
investment advisors, as mandated by Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

I thank you in advance for your consideration in the important matter.
Sincerely,

ichael G. Grimm
Member of Congress

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
REG- YF] - 09 Page 1 of

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION FEB 9 9 29'0
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS ‘

BRANCH As of: February 22, 2010
Received: February 21, 2010
Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION [restet:2oror 22,2010

Tracking No. 80aa9621

Comments Due: May 03, 2010)
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0006
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants & Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Comment On: IRS-2010-0006-0001
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Document: IRS-2010-0006-0039
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-02028

Submitter Information

Name: Patrick Gibbs
Address:
Marietta, GA,

General Comment

The proposed rule should be rejected. The federal government has demonstrated an inability to
manage any retirement plan in a fiscally responsible fashion based on sound actuarial principles.
The Social Security System has no funds with which to pay its obligations besides current tax
revenues. In past decades revenues that have exceeded current distributions have been
"borrowed" by the Executive Branch for other government expenditures.

The existence of a Social Security Trust Fund has been one of the biggest lies of the 20th
Century. To say one agency of the federal government owes money to another agency of the
federal government is an absurdity on its face.

The proposed rule is a revenue grab that bears a striking resemblance to what has been done in
the last year in Argentina. This sort of policy is what has taken Argentina down from one of the
Top Ten economies in the world in the 1930's to the status of a banana republic with no
responsible fiscal policies and a socialist government.

Neither this rule nor any variation of it should be approved.

https://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 2/22/2010