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

Union Calendar No. 460

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 99

[Report No. 106–794]

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c)

of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 6, 2000

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

JULY 26, 2000

Reported adversely from the Committee on Ways and Means, committed to

the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained

in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect

to Vietnam.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress does not approve the extension of the au4 thority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of
2

•HJ 99 RH

1 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June

2 2, 2000, with respect to Vietnam.

Union Calendar No. 460

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 99

[Report No. 106–794]

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority

1974 with respect to Vietnam.contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

JULY 26, 2000

Reported adversely from the Committee on Ways and

printedHouse on the State of the Union, and ordered to beMeans, committed to the Committee of the Whole
CAS Security Posture and Compliance

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. What is a Security Posture?

a. A Security Posture is an organization’s overall security plan that 

involves the approach to the business in terms of security, from 

planning to implementation. It is comprised of technical and nontechnical procedures, policies, and controls, that protect the 

organization from both internal and external threats.

2. What is Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS)?

a. PCI -DSS is an information security standard for organizations that 

handle branded credit cards from the major card schemes. The PCI 

Standard is mandated by the card brands but administered by the 

Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. The standard 

was created to increase controls around cardholder data to reduce 

credit card fraud.

3. Are all agencies required to comply with PCI DSS?

a. Yes, PCI DSS requirements apply to all organizations, systems, 

networks and applications that process, store, or transmit at least 

the cardholder number. 

4. Is there a difference between PCI Validation and PCI Compliance?

a. Yes, PCI Validation is a snapshot of a compliance status. 

i. PCI Validation entails providing a quarterly submission of 

External Network Vulnerability scans, along with the 

completion of a Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) or Onsite Audit (depending on Merchant level) in order to 

“validate” an organization compliant with PCI DS 

requirements. 

ii. PCI Compliance are the ongoing security controls and 

procedures that help to protect your organization on a 24/7 

basis.

5. How do I know my Merchant Level?

a. An organizations Merchant Level is contingent upon the processing 

amount of Visa and MasterCard transactions per year. 

i. Level 1 - Any merchant processing 6 million or more

regardless of acceptance channel. 

ii. Level 2 - Any merchant, regardless of acceptance channel, 

processing 1-6 million.

iii. Level 3 - Any merchant processing 20,000 to 1 million

e-commerce.

iv. Level 4 - All other merchants, regardless of acceptance 

channel
CAS Security Posture and Compliance 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) cont.

6. How do I know which Self-Assessment Questionnaire to complete?

a. The Self-Assessment Questionnaire will differ per your agency’s 

Merchant Level and card acceptance point (e.g. Standalone 

Terminal, Pay.gov or Third-Party Provider/Value Added Reseller).

Contact the Worldpay Treasury Support Help Desk at 

RMTreasury@fisglobal.com for additional support.

7. What is PCI Assist and Trustwave and how can it help with compliance 

validation?

a. PCI Assist is a set of data security tools targeted to Level 4 

Merchants. Trustwave is a leading provider of PCI DSS compliance 

and cybersecurity services. PCI Assist is accessed through the 

Trustwave portal. 

8. How do I enroll in Trustwave?

a. Contact the Worldpay Treasury Support Help Desk at 

RMTreasury@fisglobal.com. Provide the below information to get 

started with the enrollment process:

i. Company Name

ii. Chain Legal Name 

iii. One Merchant ID number
January 14, 1948

No. 52125.

Suit *4574.*

#### United *States*v. *Western Operating Corp.*

C. D. 1036 affirmed November 29,1947. C. A. D. 373.
/,---,'"', 

r;vcompa~s < ,~·- AI rimes 

April 22, 2013 

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Compass Airlines, LLC 

11!11 !t ~ ,LU J n. 

; -' ~ : 

Request for Extension of Exemption 94968 

. Docket Number F AA-2007 -28967 • • I , '."? ;,.-\ t ,.-.., \ ~' ! ·: ~ J 

To Whom It May Concern: 

James M. White 

Director, Operations 

Compass Airlines, Inc. 

7500 Airline Dr., Ste 130 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Mike. White@compassairline.com 

612.713.6891-0 

314.497.9836- c 

Please acdept- this letter as a request for an extension of Exemption No: 94968 

(as'amended) from 14 CFR Part 121.434(c), which is set to expire on September 30, 

2013. This exemption allows Compass to substitute a qualified and authorized check 

airmari or· aircrew prbgram designee· fori an FAA in!Spebtor to observ~ _a qualifying pilot in 

command'(PIC)'who is conW:>·Ieting'ihitial6r upgtadetraining S:p·ecifi'ed.in;§'·121:424'' 1

' 1 

during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. Since the time of the 

exemption, Compass has abided by the conditions and limitations described therein and 

the exem'ption has hot previously been' superseded or 'rescinded! An ·extension oUhis ( 

exemption ls'·ilecessary toCo'mpas's'operatio'ri:!Any lapse ofthe exemption ·will result'irl 

sigriifica'nt delays'·Jn tompas;s,; piloHrairiing program,· which Will result in significant ' .. 

delays that Will affect the entirety of Compass' operations.. . · 

Further, Compass does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the 

current exemption which was originally granted in September 2007. This exemption has 

be.en in use for over six years with no compromises of safety. The renewal of this 

exemption Is not 'a' controversial) issue:' The existence of the exemption is well known and 

widely accepted. For this reason,' a'nd the· ri3asoris stated above, Com'pass requests that 

a finding ofgood. cause-oe made waiving publication in the Federal Register (14 G.F.R. 

§1.1.87). !. ": !'.;·.·.. .l;•' ·, ,., .•. • •' "' ;.I , .<• .. ,.,, •. ·.J' .. I : 

'.( .J ... ~,..· 'II-!. ' !. . ,·~. ';f; ..... ~. • ~ •• j .;~·; ~· .,: .. , 

' . Th~nk you for your•c'o•nsideratiori of 6ur'reque·st for exfensioii·:of-'this exemption. 

Please feel Nee'· to contad ni'e ··at 612 .. 71316891 with any questions or conce11nsJ· '

11 <· :l 1, ...... ~--· ·: •• • • ~-.''.··~~ t~·~; .. _i(.~C',.._-:.;q:·!;·:;.;:~· 

• j ; __ ,, 

James M. White , _., ., .··~. i.l, 

~ : .: I ; ~ . \ ' : : "'; ' I'(·. 

. l. \. ·~ .. '
Before the First Division,

May 9, 1963

No. 67710.

#### Barnett Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Ruggles China *&*Gift House, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/16835 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of so-called Marion vases, which are table and kitchen articles and utensils, having as their component material glass, pressed and unpolished, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61718.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 310045-K and 310046-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# L_2023163EN.01010401.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 163/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 163/104

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2022/2400 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 317 of 9 December 2022
  )

| 1. | On page 28, Annex, point 1, which amends Annex IV, point (a), entry for Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds: |
| --- | --- |

1.

On page 28, Annex, point 1, which amends Annex IV, point (a), entry for Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds:

for:

| ‘Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds | 355-46-4 and others | 355-46-4 and others | 1 mg/kg
  (PFHxS and its salts), 40 mg/kg
  (sum of PFHxS-related compounds)
  The Commission shall review that concentration limit and shall, where appropriate, adopt a legislative proposal to lower that value, where such lowering is feasible in accordance with scientific and technical progress, no later than 30 December 2027.’’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds

355-46-4 and others

355-46-4 and others

1 mg/kg

(PFHxS and its salts), 40 mg/kg

(sum of PFHxS-related compounds)

The Commission shall review that concentration limit and shall, where appropriate, adopt a legislative proposal to lower that value, where such lowering is feasible in accordance with scientific and technical progress, no later than 30 December 2027.’’

read:

| ‘Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds | 355-46-4 and others | 206-587-1 and others | 1 mg/kg
  (PFHxS and its salts), 40 mg/kg
  (sum of PFHxS-related compounds)
  The Commission shall review that concentration limit and shall, where appropriate, adopt a legislative proposal to lower that value, where such lowering is feasible in accordance with scientific and technical progress, no later than 30 December 2027.’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds

355-46-4 and others

206-587-1 and others

1 mg/kg

(PFHxS and its salts), 40 mg/kg

(sum of PFHxS-related compounds)

The Commission shall review that concentration limit and shall, where appropriate, adopt a legislative proposal to lower that value, where such lowering is feasible in accordance with scientific and technical progress, no later than 30 December 2027.’

| 2. | On page 29, Annex, point 1, which amends Annex IV, point (e), third column: |
| --- | --- |

2.

On page 29, Annex, point 1, which amends Annex IV, point (e), third column:

for:

‘247-148-4 221-69-5-9’,

read:

‘247-148-4

221-695-9’.

---
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 50591 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus Jairin Antonio Rodezno

- Guevara, also known as Jairin Guevara, also known as Jarin Guevara, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 43

- 1

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jairin Antonio Rodezno

- Guevara appeals the 21

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States following a previous removal. He argues that the recidivism

* Pursuan t to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50591 Document: 00515687797 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020No. 20

- 50591

2 enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional becaus e it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment n or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Rodezno

- Guevara correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendar

ez
- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further possible review. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 20-50591 Document: 00515687797 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
Case No..10,349.

#### NORTON v. BARKER et al.

[1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 29.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 19, 1874.

Construction of Bankruptcy Act of 1S67, § 2 [14 Stat. 517] — Limitation of Actions by OK AGAINST ASSIGNEE.

This was an action of assuinpsit commenced July 10, 1872. The narr. contained the common counts, the date of promise laid therein being August 33, 1867. The defendants pleaded that the cause of action had not accrued to the assignee within two years of action brought. The replication admitted the truth of the plea, but alleged that said action was not brought for any cause of action which had accrued for said plaintiff against any one claiming an adverse interest touching any property or rights of property of said bankrupt, but for the collection of certain sums of money due the éstate of said bankrupt by said defendants. The defendants demurred to the replication.

Mr. Hollingsworth (with whom was George TV. Biddle), for defendants,

in support of the demurrer, cited—

3.. As to the meaning of the words “any person claiming an adverse interest”; Mitchell y. Great Works Milling & ManuPg Co. ICase No. 9,662]; McLean v, Lafayette Bank lid. 8,885]; Cleveland v. Boerum, 24 N. Y. 633; Pritchard v. Chandler [Case No. 14.-436]; Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. [81 U. S.] 419.

2. As to the construction of the act so as to make the limitation of two years apply to all actions by or against an assignee: Com-egys v. M’Cord, 11 Ala. 932; Harris v. Collins, 13 Ala. 388; Pike v. Lowell, 32 Me. 245; Peiper v. Harmer, 8 Pkikt. 100.

Page & Bispliam, for plaintiff,

cited—

1. As to confining the concurrent jurisdiction of the circuit court, under this section of tlie bankrupt act, to cases where the opposite parties to a suit claim by a title different from, or adverse to, each other: Bach-man v. Packard [Case No. 709]; Morgan v. Thornfield, 11 Wall. [7S U. S.] 65; Sherman v. Bingham [Case No. 12,762]; Beecher v. Bininger [Id. 1,222]; Bank v. Campbell [14 Wall. (81 U. S.) 87]; Ex parte Bank of New Orleans. 3 Law Rep. 553; Woods v. For-syth [Case No. 17,992]: Coit v. Robinson [19 *417Wall. (S6 U. S.) 274); Sedgwick v. Casey [Case No. 12,610); Davis v. Anderson [Id. 3,-623); In re Alexander [Id. 100); Bump, Banlcr. 201-309.

2. On the point that the statute only applies in cases in which the said section of the bankrupt act confers a concurrent jurisdiction in the circuit court: Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. [7S ü. S.) 05; Bank v. Ogden, 2 Wall. [69 U. S.) 70; Clark v. Clark, 17 How. [58 U. S.) 321; In re Conant [Case No. 3,086); Freelander v. Holloman [Id. 5,-081]; Davis v. Anderson [supra); In re Krog-man [Case No. 7,936); Bump, Bankr. 314; ttaion Canal Co. v. Woodside, 1 Jones [11 Pa. St.) 179.

3. They also argued that the statute applied only to hostile claims or those by which the whole of the property, which was the subject thereof, was claimed, and not to claims which only asserted a right to a dividend.

THE COURT entered judgment for defendants on the. demurrer.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code(18 U.S.C. §1350), Jeffrey Staszak, Chief Executive Officer of Volterra Semiconductor Corporation(the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 31st day of October, 2007.        By: /s/ Jeffrey Staszak           Jeffrey Staszak
! !

!

! !

!

!!

!

! ! ! !

TEXAS

OKLAHOMA

WYOMING

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

NORTH

CAROLINA

WEST

VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

CONNECTICUT

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

LOUISIANA

Tulsa

Reston

Seattle

Flagstaff

Blacksburg

Leesburg

Wahpeton Burlington

Augusta

Trenton

Newport

Bentonville

Thousand Oaks

! !

Base data courtesy of the National Atlas of the United States®

Categories

3: Fifty States Initiative (11)

1: Metadata Trainer Assistance and Outreach (5)

2: Framework Client Development (3)

4: Canadian/US Spatial Data Infrastructure Development (1)

5: Geographic Information Integration (5)

August 21, 2007

2006 NSDI CAP Awards

!

!

!

!
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to Registration
Statement No. 333-76425 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account Seven on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of
our report dated February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account Seven relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MONTANEZ, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant,
v. TOM FELKER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 07-56726 D.C. No. CV-07-00091-GW(PLA)
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, ** District Judge. Jose Montanez, Jr., is a California state prisoner appealing the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling, because he has failed to show diligence. See Bryant v. 

# FILED
NOV 13 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Ariz. Atty. Gen. , 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner did not demonstrate that he requested his legal materials while in Administrative Segregation or made any effort to prepare a petition before such Segregation. AFFIRMED
.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2004  I, Henry Fong, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbarnes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Torpedo Sports, USA, Inc. for the
         year ended July 31, 2004, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
         Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2004, fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
         of operations of the Torpedo Sports USA, Inc.



/s/ Henry Fong
-----------------------
Henry Fong
Chief Executive Officer
December 16, 2004

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2004  I, Barry S. Hollander, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbarnes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Torpedo Sports, USA, Inc. for the
         year ended July 31, 2004, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
         Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2004, fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
         of operations of the Torpedo Sports USA, Inc.



/s/ Barry S. Hollander
-----------------------
Barry S. Hollander
Chief Financial Officer
December 16, 2004
Before the Third Division,

January 31, 1947

No. 51548.

#### Protests 541055-G, etc., of Fujii Junichi Shoten, Ltd., et al. (Honolulu) .

Opinion by

Clin?, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bean flour similar in all material respects to that which was passed upon in *Togasaki*v. *United States*(23 C. C. P. A. 342, T. D. 48197). In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 775 was sustained.