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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 31 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 31

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 1997

     Mr. Helms (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
 Wellstone) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the 
President to the Congress on May 29, 1997, with respect to the People's 
Republic of China.
                                 <all>
```
smsi-ex10242_228.htm



EXHIBIT 10.24.2

SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 

(NEXT GENERATION TC FBO ANDREW ARNO IRA 1663)

 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made as of March 5, 2018, by and between Smith Micro Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and NEXT GENERATION TC FBO ANDREW ARNO IRA 1663 (“Holder”), and amends that certain Secured Promissory Note, dated August 24, 2017, issued by the Company to Holder in the principal amount of $175,000, as amended by that certain Amendment to Secured Promissory Note dated January 30, 2018 (the “Note”).  Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to such terms in the Note. 

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Maturity Date of the Note as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

Section 1.  Extension of Note.  Effective as of the date hereof, the Maturity Date of the Note is hereby extended to March 25, 2020.

 

Section 2.  Effect of Amendment.  Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, no other changes or modifications to the Note are intended or implied by this Amendment.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Note, the terms of this Amendment shall control.  

 

Section 3.  Miscellaneous.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties to this Amendment may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart.  Facsimile and electronically copied signatures on this Amendment shall be deemed the equivalent of original signatures.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.  

 

 

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 



EXHIBIT 10.24.2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY: 

SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC.

 

By: /s/ Timothy C. Huffmyer

Name:  Timothy C. Huffmyer

Title:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

HOLDER:

 

NEXT GENERATION TC FBO ANDREW ARNO IRA 1663

 

 

By: /s/ Kyle Schickram

Name:  Kyle Schickram

Title:  Transaction Specialist
Subject: Petition for an exemption from § 33.27(f)(6) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 C.F.R.) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Attached please find a revised petition for exemption from the provisions of 14 C.F.R. § 33.27(f)(6) 

submitted by Rolls-Royce pic ("Rolls-Royce"). The revision provides additional information in 

support of the petition presented in our letter to the FAA dated 2151 January 2015. Rolls-Royce has 

previously prepared a substantiating report, a copy of which was provided in January 2015 on a 

confidential basis as proprietary information to the FAA Engine Certification Office. This 

substantiating report remains relevant to the revised petition. 

Rolls-Royce would appreciate the FAA's consideration of this petition on an expedited basis, to the 

extent consistent with its internal processes. The exemption, if granted, will facilitate completion of 

cross-validation of the new Trent 1000 engine models identified in this petition. 

Yours faithfully, 

'tJ>ft~ 

Airworthiness Specialist 

Rolls-Royce pic 

Mail Stop ML-52 Moor Lane A2 

Tel: +44(0)1332 249426 

Fax: +44(0)1332 245328 

cc: Colleen M D'Aiessandro, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Glorianne Niebuhr, Acting Manager, Engine Certification Branch, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service 

Tara Fitzgerald, Project Officer, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Robert Green, Engine Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Rolls·Aoyce pic Registered office:65 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AT 

Company number: 1003142. Registered In England.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification  Pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  §1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sebastian Perez, Chief Operating Officer and acting
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Sebastian F. Perez                                                                                                   
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Sebastian PerezChief Operating Officer and
acting President and Chief Executive Officer InfoTech USA, Inc.August 13, 2003
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 800 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the issuance 

of State driver’s licenses or other government-issued photo identification 

to illegal aliens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2007 

Mr. LATHAM (for himself, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. 

CRENSHAW, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. 

LOBIONDO, Mr. ISSA, Mr. HUNTER, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. JONES of North 

Carolina, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. GARY G. MILLER

of California, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BAKER, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. 

FORTENBERRY, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. DREIER, Mr. WALSH

of New York, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. BUCHANAN, 

Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. WICKER, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. 

BOYDA of Kansas, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, 

Mr. SHULER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mrs. SCHMIDT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the issuance of State driver’s licenses or other government-issued photo identification to illegal aliens. 

Whereas some States issue State driver’s licenses to aliens 

who are unlawfully present in the United States; 

Whereas by providing official government-issued identification 

to individuals who are in the United States illegally, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 800 IH 

States and other government entities reward those who 

show disrespect and disregard for Federal immigration 

laws; 

Whereas the very act of entering the United States illegally 

shows disrespect for the laws of the United States and 

should not be rewarded in any way; and 

Whereas issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented individuals 

presents a national security risk and enables election 

fraud: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that States should not issue driver’s licenses 

3 or other government-issued photo identification to aliens 

4 who are unlawfully present in the United States. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
No. 67587.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/23542 and 62/10104 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65737, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Searched for **http://healthfinder.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://healthfinder.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
From: bobbysolberg@excite.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:07:36 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,

robert solberg

Kaukauna, WI 54130
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,997,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,131,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,724,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,160,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,948,000
<PP&E>                                       5,603,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 877,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,919,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,252,000
<BONDS>                                        465,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                        44,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,151,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,919,000
<SALES>                                     17,535,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,535,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,078,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,042,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (50,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (992,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (992,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit
32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ Robert C. Sepucha
 -28-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1 Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint on April 27, 2007. Docket no. 46. The Court

granted this motion, docket no. 52, but Plaintiff never filed his amended complaint. 

ORDER 1–

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ORIYON ABRAHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C06-379Z

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant City of Seattle’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, docket no. 62. Having considered the papers filed in support of the

motion, the absence of response thereto, and the record, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that Defendant, City of Seattle, violated his civil rights pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Amended Compl. at p. 13-15 (docket no. 10). In addition, Plaintiff alleged

various state claims which were dismissed with prejudice. Order (docket no. 39). Plaintiff is

currently pro se because Paul Richmond, Plaintiff’s former counsel, was permitted to

withdraw in July. Order (docket no. 60).

Case 2:06-cv-00379-TSZ Document 75 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 2–

Plaintiff was served with requests for admission on October 8, 2007. Exh. 1 attached

to Carr Decl., docket no. 73. The requests were sent to Plaintiff’s address at 452 12th Ave.,

Seattle, Washington. Id. The requests informed Plaintiff that failing to answer the requests

within thirty days from the date of service would result in an automatic admission of the

matters requested. Id.; See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). As of this time, Plaintiff has not responded

to these requests. 

Defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment on October 10, 2007. 

Defendant’s Mot. for Sum. J. (docket no. 62). The motion was noted for November 2, 2007

and Plaintiff’s response was due on October 29, 2007. Id.; Local Rule CR 7(d)(3). Plaintiff

has not responded to this motion nor has he given the Court, or any of the parties, any

indication that he intends to respond. Carr Decl., docket no. 73, ¶ 2. 

II. DISCUSSION

Having failed to respond to any of the requests for admission, Plaintiff is deemed to

have admitted the matters set forth. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).

Having failed to file any response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the merits of Defendant’s motion. Local Rule 7(b)(2). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

docket no. 62, and dismisses all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2007.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00379-TSZ Document 75 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10.17.3
                 LETTERHEAD OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

                           February 17, 2000



M. Douglas Ivester
Atlanta, Georgia

Dear Doug:

        Much has changed since December 5, 1999.  The planned restructuring
and transformation of our business is taking place at a very fast pace.  Not
only the speed with which we have been able to form and execute our plans but
the particulars applicable to those who might be eligible for voluntary early
retirement had not been clearly envisioned at that time. Thus, we believe the
purpose behind the Board's desire that you remain until April 19 have been
completely satisfied.  We also believe that by offering you the benefits of
the voluntary early retirement program, both you and the Company would benefit.
The Compensation Committee has approved these terms on February 16, 2000.

        Accordingly, we propose that our letter of December 6, 1999 be
amended as follows:

        1.  You would resign as Chairman, Director and Chief Executive
            Officer effective February 17, 2000.

        2.  The payments described in the third paragraph would remain
            the same but would be offset by payments from the ERP and
            would be deemed to include the lump sum payment payable under
            the voluntary retirement program.

        3.  The exercise period for all unexercised options after your
            retirement would be that available to all other retirees under
            the terms of the options rather than a six month exercise
            period.

        4.  You would receive a lump sum payment from your Supplemental
            Thrift Plan upon your retirement.

        5.  On the first of March you will begin receiving monthly payments
            of $4,331.01 which will continue until March 1, 2027 pursuant
            to the terms of the Compensation Deferral and Investment Program.

        6.  The Company would not reimburse you for medical coverage since
            your insurance benefits as a retiree would continue, as would
            your spouse's.



<PAGE>

M. Douglas Ivester
February 11, 2000
Page 2


        7.  You would be eligible for the Matching Gifts program as a retiree.

        8.  In the event of your death, all payments due under this letter and
            the December 6th letter, as amended by this letter, will be made
            to your spouse.

        We believe this amendment serves us both.  Please accept our best wishes
on your retirement.

On behalf of the Company and the Board



/s/ Herbert A. Allen                    /s/ Douglas N. Daft
---------------------------------       --------------------------------------
Herbert A. Allen                        Douglas N. Daft
Chairman, Compensation Committee        President and Chief Operating Officer
The Board of Directors                  The Coca-Cola Company
The Coca-Cola Company



Agreed and accepted this 17th day of February, 2000


/s/ M. Douglas Ivester
-------------------------------------
M. Douglas Ivester
Subject: Conference Call Meeting with Doe Run Company

Date: April 5, 2011

Participants:

Jo seph Stolle , Shell Engineering (Consultant) The Doe Run Company

B e rn Johnson Missouri Department of Natural Resources

U.S. EPA, Region 7 Richard Daye Dr. Dave Guinnup U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mark Morris

Sharon Nizich

Darcie Smith

Michael Stewart

Veronica Hanzel RTI International

Mike Laney Summary:

A conference call was held by risk assessment staff from EPA, The Doe Run Company ( Doe Run) and the Missouri DNR to discuss in more detail the EPA methods and data used in estimating lead impacts from Doe Run in support of the Primary Lead RTR proposal.

Dave Guinnup from EPA provided an overview of what was done in the residual risk mod eling effort prior to proposal using the Human Exposure Model (HEM) and post processing necessary

to determine 3

- month rolling average concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS. Dr. Guinnup indicated that the input files used and a complete description o f the methodologies were

included in the docket. Those files included emissions and source data from the 2008 Information Collection Request (ICR) response, a description of the site

- specific 1998 meteorological data, and fence line receptor information.

Dr. Guinnup indicated that a preliminary review of recent information provided by Doe Run indicates that the likely source of discrepancy between the EPA RTR modeling results and those from the SIP modeling performed by the State and Doe Run was that the 2 model runs used different facility fence line information (i.e., the highest receptor location identified in the RTR modeling appears to be inside the current property boundary). Other aspects of the modeling exercise were discussed including terra in, model run options, and defaults.

Doe Run asked if EPA could extend the comment deadline beyond April 19, 2011, to allow Doe Run to complete their review of the modeling and provide useful comments. EPA stated that they were reviewing this request.

To assist Doe Run in conducting their own modeling, EPA agreed to provide (to Doe Run, the State and Region 7) an AERMOD input file with the same input data used to conduct the RTR HEM modeling, as well as the 1998 site

- specific meteorological file. The se files will also beadded to the docket. EPA requested that a new shape file or at minimum, an updated table of fence line coordinates be provided along with any source or emissions data corrections so that EPA could consider those data in performing an y additional assessment in support of the final

rule.