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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 717 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the so-called 

‘‘FISA memo’’, a document prepared by the House Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence, and any ancillary information, should be 

released to the public. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2018 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. BARR, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. 

GRIFFITH, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. MESSER, 

Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of 

Florida, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BABIN, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. SANFORD, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. 

DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. 

RENACCI, Mr. BRAT, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Mr. PERRY, Mr. 

BIGGS, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. POE of 

Texas, Mr. BLUM, Mr. ROTHFUS, Mr. ADERHOLT, and Mr. ROGERS of 

Alabama) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the so-called ‘‘FISA memo’’, a document prepared by 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

and any ancillary information, should be released to the 

public. 

Whereas the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) drafted a memo summarizing improper 

conduct at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 717 IH 

Department of Justice, widely referred to as the ‘‘FISA 

memo’’; 

Whereas, on January 18, 2018, HPSCI voted to make the 

memo available to all Members of the House of Representatives; 

Whereas many Members of Congress have found the information provided in this memo to be shocking and un-American; 

Whereas, on January 19, 2018, 65 Members of Congress 

signed a letter to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes requesting that the HPSCI memo be released to the public; 

and 

Whereas the information provided in the memo pertains to 

preserving the integrity of the United States democratic 

system of government: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Release the 

4 Memo Resolution’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING RELEASE OF 

6 THE FISA MEMO. 

7 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

8 (1) in accordance with all proper protocol and 

9 procedures, the House Permanent Select Committee 

10 on Intelligence (HPSCI) should immediately hold a 

11 recorded vote on making the so-called ‘‘FISA memo’’ 

12 and any ancillary information available to the public; 

13 and 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 717 IH 

1 (2) if HPSCI votes to make the memo and in2 formation available to the public, HPSCI should re3 lease such memo and information to the public as 

4 quickly as possible after holding the vote. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 57558.

#### M. E. Dey & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 47273-K, etc. (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Wilhelm *v.*Weigley, Appellant.

*Habeas corpus*— Contempt *of court*— Purging—Appeal *quashed.*

An appeal from an order, adjudging an appellant in contempt of court, will be quashed, when counsel advise the Superior Court that the appellant purged himself of the contempt before appealing.

Argued April 16, 1924.

Appeal, No. 122, April T., 1924, by respondent, from decree of C. P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1923, No. 86, in the case of Commonwealth ex rel. Marie Weigley Wilhelm v. Harry E. Weigley.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

*190Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Before Berkey, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court below entered, the following decree:

And now, October 15, 1923, this cause was argued on petition and answer, but an examination of the pleadings reveals disputed questions of fact which can only be determined upon testimony offered by the parties. The only question before the court that can be considered in this proceeding is to determine whether or not the respondent is guilty of contempt of court, and an order thereon will carry with it the custody of the child. The case is remanded to the argument list for the reasons above set forth.

Now, December 18, 1923 the respondent, Harry E. Weigley, is hereby adjudicated to be in contempt of the decree of the court dated June 2, 1923, and directs that an attachment issue unless the custody of the child is restored to its mother by December 29,1923.

December 18, 1923, the respondent excepts to the decree of the court, whereupon the exception is noted as requested and bill sealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*J. J. Kinter,*and with him *Harry G. Gress,*for appellant.

*Daryle R. Heckman,*for appellee.

May 5, 1924:

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant in contempt in proceedings in habeas corpus. At bar, counsel advised the court that appellant had purged himself of the contempt. No question remains for our consideration. Appeal quashed.
AFS-11-114-E February 24, 2011 Exemption No. 8843B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26738

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8843, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.



### The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Aviation Institute of Ma intenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate U5DT571K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8843, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register . The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.2



### Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8843, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.



### The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8843, as amended, to February 28, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8843 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8843.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
lob-ex1053_164.htm



Exhibit 10.5.3

 

Live Oak Bank -. Amendment #1.11 DAO

This amendment (“Amendment”) is effective September 5, 2018, and amends the NCINO , INC. Software Service Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between nCino, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Wilmington, North Carolina (“NCINO”) and Live Oak Banking Company (“Subscriber”).

In exchange for the consideration detailed herein, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is acknowledged both parties, the parties do hereby agree as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Subscriber wishes to purchase additional seats and/or services for nCino product(s) for the Fees outlined on Exhibit A.




Subscriber will have access to such seats and/or services upon the Activation Date for such seats and/or services, which will also trigger payment being due for the additional seats and/or services. The Activation Date for this amendment will be the later of the amendment effective date or the date this amendment is signed by both the Subscriber and NCINO. The term for the additional seats and/or services will run co-terminously with the current Subscription Term under the Agreement. Exhibit A specifically amends Attachments A, B, and C of the Agreement.


	
 
	
2.
	
This Amendment (including Exhibit A) and the Agreement are the complete and entire agreement between the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all prior agreements, negotiation, discussions or proposals related thereto. Any further modification or amendment must be agreed to in writing in a document executed by both parties.




Exhibit A - Fees

Additional Licenses

Subscription Fees are hereby amended to cover the cost of the additional services for the following nCino products:

 


				
	
Module License
	
Price
	
Qty
	
Total

	
nCino Premium Seat
	
USD 130.00/User/Mo
	
23
	
USD 2,990.00

	
Total Monthly Fee
	
USD 2,990.00




 

 

 

 


	
	
nCino, Inc | 6770 Parker Farm Drive | Suite 200 | Wilmington, NC 28405

	
Page 1 of 2




 



 

 

Term: Concurrent with your Agreement.

Support Services

 

 

If applicable, the Annual Success Plan Fee (Support and Maintenance) and Sandbox will be amended accordingly to cover the cost of the additional seats. Subscriber will be billed upon Amendment execution for a pro-rata portion of the Annual Success Plan Fee (Support and Maintenance) and/or Sandbox for the current year for the additional seats. Thereafter, the overall Annual Success Plan Fee (Support and Maintenance) and/or Sandbox for all products will be increased to include the additional seats to the overall support fee.

The foregoing is hereby agreed by the parties: Signatures:

 

 

 

 


	
nCino, Inc.
	
 
	
Live Oak Banking Company

	
(Signature)
	
 
	
/s/ Rachel Perelli
	
 
	
(Signature)
	
 
	
/s/ Dave Hunkele

	
(Printed Name)
	
 
	
Rachel Perelli
	
 
	
(Printed Name)
	
 
	
Dave Hunkele

	
(Title)
	
 
	
Sales Operations Manager
	
 
	
(Title)
	
 
	
Sales Head of Product

	
(Date)
	
 
	
9/11/2018
	
 
	
(Date)
	
 
	
9/10/2018




 

 


	
	
nCino, Inc | 6770 Parker Farm Drive | Suite 200 | Wilmington, NC 28405

	
Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6482
SPELLMAN B. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-190-AM) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Spellman B. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying hismotion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. Appellant sought to prevent the implementation of a prison regulation governing contraband. To the extent that Appellant appeals the denial of a temporary restraining order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictionbecause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. To the extent that Appellant appeals the denial of injunctiverelief, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Angelone , No. CA-96-190- AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
No. 50851.

#### Protests 95471-K, etc., of Societa Prodotti Nazionali, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all material respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 7, C. D. 932). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, judgment was entered directing the collector to reliquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been taken in excess, in accordance with the decision and judgment in ■Abstract 45174.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 74995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24035]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Appointments Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Appointments Panel, a 
subcommittee of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 
(FASAB), will hold a meeting on November 15, 2023. The Appointments 
Panel makes recommendations regarding appointments for non-federal 
member positions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is closed to the public. The 
reason for the closure is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) 
and (6) will be discussed. Any such discussions will involve matters 
that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the 
sponsor agencies and the disclosure of information of a personal nature 
where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), portions of advisory committee meetings may 
be closed to the public where the head of the agency to which the 
advisory committee reports determines that such portion of such meeting 
may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of 
section 552b of title 5, United States Code. The determination shall be 
in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. A 
determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the 
Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of FACA, 
that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in 
accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United 
States Code.
    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d); Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. 1001-1014).

    Dated: October 26, 2023.
Monica R. Valentine,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2023-24035 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
No. 60687.

#### Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 216836-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Ilerber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
No. 61731.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 310185-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Ekaline F, which product is not obtained from any oil, fat, or fatty acid described in the Internal Revenue Code, but is derived in part from sperm oil, which is not covered by the statute, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
July 10, 1962

Reap. Dec. 10301.

#### Louis Goldy Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New York, N.Y. (Not published.) (Initial No. R61/22102.) Motion by plaintiffs.
---------------------------
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                             ----------------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (D) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                       -----------------------------------

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) February 6, 2003

                         JUNIATA VALLEY FINANCIAL CORP.
                         ------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

      Pennsylvania                       00013232               23-2235254
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of        (Commission           (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)         File Number)         Identification No.)

      Bridge and Main Streets, P.O. Box 66, Mifflintown, Pennsylvania 17059
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

                              FRANCIS J. EVANITSKY
                               PRESIDENT & C.E.O.
                         JUNIATA VALLEY FINANCIAL CORP.
                              Bridge & Main Streets
                              Mifflintown, PA 17059
                              ---------------------
                         (Address of executive offices)

                                   Copies to:
                             JAMES A. ULSH, ESQUIRE
                             METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
                        3401 N. Front St., P.O. Box 5950
                            Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
                          Telephone No. (717) 232-5000

                                 (717) 436-8211
                                 --------------
           (Telephone No., including area code, of agent for service)



Item 5.  Other Events

     On February 6, 2003, Juniata Valley Financial Corp. issued a press release
reporting year end financial results. The aforementioned is attached as an
exhibit to this current report on Form 8-K.

<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                          Juniata Valley Financial Corp.
                                          ------------------------------
                                                   (Registrant)



Date:    February 6, 2003
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Francis J. Evanitsky, President & C.E.O.


EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No. 99          Description
--------------          -----------
                        Press Release of Juniata Valley Financial Corp.
                        dated February 6, 2003.
INFO

Sources:

FEMA (2020). Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study. 

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (2019). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report. Porter, K. et. al. National Institute of Building Sciences. Washington, DC. 

Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Wilson, P. et al. (2017). The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Sci Rep 7, 9463. 

Reguero, B. et. al (2018). Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from the Gulf Coast of the United States. PLoS ONE 13(4)

1 This study reviewed the Gulf of Mexico only.

After Hurricane Katrina, Jefferson Parish, LA used 

FEMA grants and other funds to elevate 23 homes. 

So far, the project has saved more than double its 

cost in avoided losses.

Retrofit existing buildings and update utilities: 

For every $1 invested, 

avoid $4 in losses.

Build new coastal homes 2 feet above 

the 1%-annual-chance flood level: 

For every $1 invested, 

avoid $17 in losses.

1 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

2

Enforce the most recent IRC/IBC codes for 

new coastal buildings: 

For every $1 invested, 

avoid $11 in losses.

Texas buildings built to meet building codes were 

stronger during Hurricane Harvey. Their insurance 

claims were half those of buildings built before 

the codes were adopted.

3 PLANS AND REGULATIONS

Lots of people are interested in resilience, reducing 

the impacts of climate change, and/or community 

safety. Connect hazard mitigation to existing concerns 

and priorities. 

The city and county of Honolulu found that, 

of 900 survey respondents, 

more than 75% 

wanted to see the government spend more money 

on resilience to the impacts of climate change.

4 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

1

Wetland and reef restoration:

For every $1 invested, avoid 

$7 in losses.1

A study found that 

Wetlands prevented $625 

million in losses 

just from Hurricane Sandy. 

Natural shoreline protection on the North Carolina 

shore was not damaged by Hurricane Irene. In contrast, 

the storm damaged more than 76% of bulkheads.

2 NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS

3

4

COASTAL MITIGATION 

IS WORTH THE INVESTMENT

| 8