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

House Calendar No. 289 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1533 

[Report No. 110–918] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2008 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported through the legislative day of December 13, 2008, 

6 providing for consideration or disposition of a measure reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:09 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1533.RH HR1533

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1533 RH 

1 lating to financial assistance to eligible automobile manu2 facturers, and for other purposes. 

3 SEC. 2. House Resolutions 1516 and 1526 are laid 

4 on the table. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 289 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1533 

[Report No. 110–918] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules with respect to consideration of certain resoluDECEMBER 9, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
SERVED: August 12, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CHEMSYSTEMS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS FAA-2012-0911 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. 

!? 

~ "'-= 

ComplainantFederal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") has filed a Motion for 

Continuance ("Motion"), asking that the hearing be postponed to permit more time for settlement 

discussions. It also represents that Respondent ChemSystems, Inc. ("Respondent") has been 

contacted and, with a similar interest in continuing negotiations, does not object to grant of the 

Motion. 

For good cause shown, Complainant's Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

The hearing in this matter is hereby continued. It will be rescheduled by subsequent 

order and, at Complainant's request, the new hearing date will be after October 31, 2013. 

g tluu! r 'CwoL~ f), 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST-BY US. MAIL & FAX 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Nancy Meikle, President 

ChemSystems, Inc., Respondent 

1 01 01 Genard Road 

Houston, TX 77041 

Robert Fling, Respondent's Counsel 

S. Robert Fling, PLLC. 

P.O. Box 411, Katy, TX 77492 

5518 Fifth Street, Suite C 

Katy, TX 77493 

TEL: 281-391-2003 

FAX: 281-727-0082 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

-3-
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Vernon Willingham

, * From the 1 04 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 28081

- B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 270

- C V * Dec ember 30 , 20 2 1

Paras Ramolia, M.D., * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Williams , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against Vernon Willingham

.
35

12 8 7 8 9 10 11

31 32 33 34 35 36 31

3

33 34 36 31 32

6 2 1

3

4 5 2 1 6

7

6 5 4

7 10 11 12

10

9

9

8

7 8

7

11 12

18 13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

23 24 19

23 24

22

22

21

21

19 20

19 20

25 30 26

26 25

27

27

29 28 30

30 29 28

35 36 31

36

31

35

34

34

33 32

31 32 33

6 2 1

1 6 3

2 3

4

4

5

5 6

7

10 11 12 9

Asotin Creek

Wenatchee Creek

WICKIUP CG

WENATCHEE

GUARD

STATION RC

CABIN SADDLE CG INDIAN

TOM TH

CLOVERLAND SP

South George Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

H-6

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

LEGEND

South George Project Planning Area

Washington State Fish and Wildlife

Pomeroy Ranger District

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

Potential Wilderness Area

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Other Undeveloped Lands

Recreation Feature

Forest Roads  ́

Map H6: Interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands and Alternative B

Map depicts Other Developed Areas

within the South George project planning boundary.

Also depicts project activities for Alternative B.

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from

sources of differing accuracy, interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc.

Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate

or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right ot correct, update, modify, or replace GIS

products without notification. For more information contact the Umatilla National Forest Supervisors Office.

D.Dixon

GIS/Data Service Specialist

06/03/2011

4300

4304

4400

Non-Commercial Thinning

Fuel Treatments

Harvest Units

Temporary Roads
No. 61045.

protests 290898-K (A), 290898-K (B), and 290899-K (New York).

#### Henry C. Schaerf Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protests disclosing that they were untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
* After an examination of the briefs an d the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 25, 2007 *

Decided July 26, 2007 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 07-1675 ANGEL D. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v. GE HEALTHCARE, Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 04-C-353 J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge

. O R D E R Angel Mitchell filed suit against her employer, GE Healthcare (“GE”), alleging that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq ., by failing to accommodate her alleged disability of migraine headaches and sinus pain. Specifically, Mitchell claimed that her supervisors at GE refused to enforce a company policy prohibiting employees from playing personal radios loudly, and that the radios’ excessive volume aggravated her headaches. Mitchell also alleged that GE retaliated against her for requesting that the policy be enforced. In February 2007, the districtcourt granted summary judgment for GE NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 07-1675 Page 2 because Mitchell failed to establish that she qualified for ADA protection, that GE otherwise failed to accommodate her headaches and sinus pain, or that GE retaliated against her. Mitchell appeals, but she does not identify any specific error made by the district court, develop an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record, or otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Instead, her brief is unorganized, disconnected, and devoted generally to topics unrelated to her lawsuit. Mitchell comes closest to formulating an argument when she describes the court’s decision as “wrong base[d] on GE’s (appellee) own [a]dmission that the radios[ ] were a privilege and not a [r]ight,” but this lone assertion does not address how the districtcourt’s grant of summary judgment was in error. Although we will construe a pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we will not attempt to craft arguments and perform lega l research on the litigant’s behalf when the litigant fails to do so. See Anderson , 241 F.3d at 545. Mitchell points to no error, we see no obvious errors, and thus her appeal is DISMISSED.
From: reycall@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:09:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rey Call

San Jose, CA 95136
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.20


Par Technology Corporation
8383 Seneca Turnpike
New Hartford, NY 13492
P 800.448.6505
www.partech.com
By Hand Delivery


April 12, 2017 


Ms. Karen Sammon
c/o PAR Technology Corporation
8383 Seneca Turnpike
New Hartford, New York 13492


            Re:       Employment Offer Letter; Amendment


Dear Karen,


This will confirm our mutual agreement that the section titled “Position” of your Employment Offer Letter dated November 16, 2015 (the “Offer Letter”) be, and hereby is, amended to read in its entirety as follows:


Position  
Effective April 12, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) you will have the title of Chief of Staff of PAR Technology Corporation (“PTC”), reporting to the Chief Executive Officer of PTC. 


Your position will be located at PTC's corporate headquarters in New Hartford, New York. You will devote your full time, energy, business judgment, skills, and best efforts to the performance of your duties with PTC, provided that you will not be required to divest your ownership interest in Sammon and Sammon, LLC, d/b/a Paragon Racquet Club, or otherwise manage your passive personal investments. You will, however, be expected to comply with and be bound by PTC’s operating policies, procedures, and practices and, subject to the forgoing, you may not render services to any other business without prior approval of the Board of Directors, nor engage or participate, directly or indirectly, in any business that is competitive in any manner with the businesses of PTC. 


Annual Leave and Personal Time Off  
Annual Leave (i.e., vacation) will be accrued at the rate of 13.33 hours per month, yielding four weeks Annual Leave per fiscal year. In addition, you will receive four Personal Time Off days 











per fiscal year. Unused Personal Time Off and Annual Leave may not be carried over to succeeding years.   


Except as amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the Offer Letter remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 


Your offer letter dated March 21, 2013, pursuant to which you were named President of ParTech, Inc. shall be terminated as of the date you Accepted and Agreed below.




Sincerely, 
                     /s/ Paul Eurek                 
Paul Eurek, Chairman, Compensation Committee 
                                                                             By Order of the Board of Directors
        
Accepted and Agreed to: 
/s/ Karen Sammon         
Karen Sammon
Dated: 4/12/17
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer





In
connection with the Annual Report of Moggle Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year  ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ernest
Cimadamore, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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




March 31,
      2010
              
              /s/
      Ernest
      CimadamoreErnest
      CimadamoreChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
From: actionmmb@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:40:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Marjorie Beyersdorf

Wausau, WI 54403
From: edna.t.gruber@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:43:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Edna Gruber

Gainesville, GA 30507
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Frank T. Smith, Jr., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RemingtonOil and Gas Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: July 28, 2004   /s/ Frank T. Smith, Jr. Frank T. Smith, Jr.*Senior Vice President/Finance(Principal Financial Officer)*