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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1110 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for private lactation 

areas in the terminals of large and medium hub airports, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2017 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself, Mrs. FISCHER, and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for private 

lactation areas in the terminals of large and medium 

hub airports, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Friendly Airports for 

5 Mothers Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LACTATION AREAS IN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIR7 PORTS. 

8 (a) LACTATION AREA DEFINED.—Section 47102 of 

9 title 49, United States Code, is amended— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1110 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through 

2 (28) as paragraphs (11) through (29), respectively; 

3 and 

4 (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(10) ‘lactation area’ means a room or other lo7 cation in a commercial service airport that— 

8 ‘‘(A) provides a location for members of 

9 the public to express breast milk that is shield10 ed from view and free from intrusion from the 

11 public; 

12 ‘‘(B) has a door that can be locked; 

13 ‘‘(C) includes a place to sit, a table or 

14 other flat surface, and an electrical outlet; 

15 ‘‘(D) is readily accessible to and usable by 

16 individuals with disabilities, including individ17 uals who use wheelchairs; and 

18 ‘‘(E) is not located in a restroom.’’. 

19 (b) PROJECT GRANT WRITTEN ASSURANCES FOR

20 LARGE AND MEDIUM HUB AIRPORTS.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 47107(a) of such 

22 title is amended— 

23 (A) in paragraph (20), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

24 at the end; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1110 IS

1 (B) in paragraph (21), by striking the pe2 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(22) with respect to a large hub airport or me5 dium hub airport, the airport owner or operator will 

6 maintain a lactation area at each passenger terminal 

7 building of the airport behind the airport security 

8 screening area.’’. 

9 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

10 paragraph (1) shall apply to a project grant applica11 tion submitted for a fiscal year beginning on or after 

12 the date that is 2 years after the date of the enact13 ment of this Act. 

14 (c) TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS.—Section 

15 47119(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end 

16 the following: 

17 ‘‘(3) LACTATION AREAS.—In addition to the 

18 projects described in paragraph (1), the Secretary 

19 may approve a project for terminal development for 

20 the construction or installation of a lactation area at 

21 a commercial service airport.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1689

FAUSTINO PEREZ-CRUZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: November 8, 2022

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES P.C., 

Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Jennifer P. Levings, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1689 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Faustino Perez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the 

transcript of Perez-Cruz’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that 

the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual 

findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 

495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re Perez-Cruz (B.I.A. May 20, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1689 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00570

- CV

In The Interest of K. N. M., a Child

On a ppeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 08

- 967,746

- d

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 30, 2016
Federal Aviation

Administration

Small UAS Certificate of 

Registration

CERTIFICATE HOLDER:Lawrence Singer

UAS CERTIFICATE NUMBER:FA3T3AMLWM

ISSUED: 02/12/2016 EXPIRES: 02/12/2019

For U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain non-citizen U.S. corporations, this document constitutes a Certificate of Registration. For all others, this document represents a recognition of 

ownership.

For all holders, for all operations other than as a model aircraft under sec. 336 of Pub. L. 112-95, additional safety authority from FAA and economic authority from DOT may be required.

Safety guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft:

Fly below 400 feet

Never fly near other aircraft

Keep your UAS within visual line of sight

Keep away from emergency responders

Never fly over stadiums, sports events or groups of people

Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Never fly within 5 miles of an airport without first contacting air traffic control and airport 

authorities
Case 2:04-cr-00774-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cr-00774-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/25/09 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cr-00774-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/25/09 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cr-00774-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/25/09 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Morris S. Young, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


November 12, 2002                       /s/ Morris S. Young
                                        -----------------------
                                        Morris S. Young
                                        Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
10.1
     Executive:Performance Period:Executives Number of Shares:50% of available shares based on EBIT % performance;50% of available shares based on Sales $performanceMonths Eligible:Performance GoalsSales Goal (mil)EBIT % GoalROIC GoalSignature Required:




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
  Establishment of Plan and Effective Date
 Eligibility
 Definitions
 Business Criteria
 Committee
 Delayed Issuance Date 1 2
 -2-




---



##### 



Executive
 LTI Plan
 Performance Period
 Target Number of Shares
 Performance Goals
 General
 -3-




---



##### 



Specific Performance Goals
 Cumulative Sales Goal
 Goal and Goal Adjustments
 Shares Subject to Goal
 Percentage of Target Number of Shares to be Issued
 -4-




---



##### 



Percentage of Sales Goal Reached
    
    Percentage of Target Shares Issuable95%
    
    
    40%96%
    
    
    45%97%
    
    
    55%98%
    
    
    67%99%
    
    
    82%100%
    
    
    100%101%
    
    
    115%102%
    
    
    127%103%
    
    
    137%104%
    
    
    144%105% or higher
    
    
    150%
 EBIT Goal
 Goal and Goal Adjustments
 Shares Subject to Goal
 Percentage of Target Number of Shares to be Issued
 -5-




---



##### 



Percentage EBIT Goal Reached
    
    Percentage of Target Shares IssuableLess than 65%
    
    
    0%65% or higher but less than 90%
    
    
    20%90%
    
    
    40%91%
    
    
    41%92%
    
    
    42%93%
    
    
    44%94%
    
    
    47%95%
    
    
    51%96%
    
    
    56%97%
    
    
    63%98%
    
    
    73%99%
    
    
    85%100%
    
    
    100%101%
    
    
    114%102%
    
    
    125%103%
    
    
    133%104%
    
    
    138%105%
    
    
    142%106%
    
    
    145%107%
    
    
    147%108%
    
    
    148%109%
    
    
    149%110% or higher
    
    
    150%
 ROIC Goal and Adjustments
 -6-




---



##### 



Percentage of ROIC Goal
    
    Multiplier95%
    
    
    101.0%96%
    
    
    101.5%97%
    
    
    102.0%98%
    
    
    102.5%99%
    
    
    103.0%100%
    
    
    105.0%101%
    
    
    107.0%102%
    
    
    109.0%103%
    
    
    111.0%104%
    
    
    113.0%105%
    
    
    115.0%
 Rounding and Interpolation th
 Certification
 -7-




---



##### 



1 2
 Maximum Shares of Stock
 Employment Requirement
 General Rule
 -8-




---



##### 



Exceptions
 Employed After Performance Period Started
 Death
 Disability
 -9-




---



##### 



Retirement
 -10-




---



##### 



One Fiscal Quarter Minimum and Pro-Ration Rules
   Stock Issuance and Minimum Tax Withholding
 -11-




---



##### 



2000 Incentive Stock Plan
 Reference
 Administration, Amendment and Termination
 -12-




---



##### 



-13-
# C_2016260EN.01001801.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Majid (or Madzhdi) Shiri

(Case C-201/16)

(2016/C 260/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Majid (or Madzhdi) Shiri

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) that confer the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision, in particular Article 27(1), to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for asylum is entitled to claim that responsibility has been transferred to the requesting Member State on the ground that the six month transfer period has expired (Article 29(2) in conjunction with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in light of the 19th recital)?
  If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) that confer the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision, in particular Article 27(1), to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for asylum is entitled to claim that responsibility has been transferred to the requesting Member State on the ground that the six month transfer period has expired (Article 29(2) in conjunction with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in light of the 19th recital)?

1

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does the transfer of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 occur by the fact of the expiry of the transfer period without any order or, for responsibility to be transferred because the period has expired, is it also necessary that the obligation to take charge of, or to take back, the person concerned has been refused by the responsible Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the transfer of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 occur by the fact of the expiry of the transfer period without any order or, for responsibility to be transferred because the period has expired, is it also necessary that the obligation to take charge of, or to take back, the person concerned has been refused by the responsible Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.

1

---
Case No. 9,708.

#### The MONITOR.

[9 Ben. 78.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

March, 1877.

Collision — On Inlatid Canal — Jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of the admiralty court over cases of collision upon inland canals upheld upon authority.

[Cited in Malony v. City of Milwaukee, 1 Fed. 612.]

A collision occurred on the Delaware and Raritan canal, in the state of New Jersey, between the steam barge Monitor and the canal boat Estelle, whereby the latter was sunk. She belonged in New York, and a libel was filed to recover for the damages. The answer of the owners of the Monitor sets up the want of jurisdiction of the admiralty courts over such cases occurring upon canals.

Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs, for libellant.

Benedict, Taft & Benedict, for claimants.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and Benj. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action to recover the damages caused by a •collision that occurred between the steam barge Monitor and the canal barge Estelle, about twelve miles west of New Brunswick on the Delaware and Raritan. canal. Upon the evidence I am of-the opinion that the collision was caused by the negligence of the steam barge.

The main question of the case is one of jurisdiction. In behalf of the defence it is contended that the admiralty has no jurist diction of a collision occurring on any canal, while the libellant insists that *such*a thoroughfare as the Delaware and Raritan canal can be no other than navigable water, and so within the jurisdiction. This precise question has never been decided by th» supreme court of the United States, although it cannot be denied that general expressions have been used by that court which afford support to the claim of jurisdiction. It is conceded, however, that there are several adjudged cases in other courts, that if followed would support this libel. But it has been earnestly requested by both sides that in the absence of authority controlling this court, the question be examined and determined in this case upon principle, and to that end I have been furnished all the assistance that can be derived from an exhaustive argument of the whole question by the advocates. In view of this request the case has been held, in the hope that some intermission of pressing business might occur in which justice to these arguments could be attempted to be done in the opinion of the court. But it is manifest that the case can be no longer delayed from this purpose without injustice to the libellant, and I therefore feel impelled to follow the cases where a similar question has arisen, without attempting at this time to set forth my own views.

Decree for libellant, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount of damages.

[An application to the supreme court for a writ of prohibition was refused by a divided court.]
IN THE



## S UPREME 

## C OURT O F THE 

## S TATE OF 

## A RIZONA

US A IRWAYS , I NC

. , A D ELA WARE C ORPORATION
, Plai ntiff/Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,

v.

Q

WEST C ORPORATION , A C OLORADO CORPORATION , Defendan t/Appellee/Cross

- Appellant,

S KYLINE S TEEL , I NC ., AN A RIZONA C ORPORATION ; O NE C ALL L OCATORS , LTD.,

DBA ELM L OCATING & U TILITY S ERVICES , A M ONTAN A CORPORATION
, Defendant s/Appellees.

No

. CV

- 1 6

- 0027

- PR
Filed November 23, 2016

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson , Judge

No. CV2011

- 001859

Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 238 Ariz. 413, 361 P.3d 942 (App. 2015)

AFFIRMED IN PART

, DEPUBLISHED IN PART

COUNSEL :

Kevin D. Neal, Jennifer A. Cranston (argued), Liana J. Garcia, Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. , Phoenix

, Attorneys for US Airways, Inc.

Rodolfo Parga, Jr., Andrea G. Lovell (argued) , R yley Carlock & Applewhite,

PC

, Phoenix, Attorneys for Qwest Corporation

John J. Kastner, Jr. (argued)

, Gust Rosenfeld, P

. L

. C

. , Tucson, Attorneys for One Call Locators, Ltd., dba ELM Locating & Utility Servic e s

Meghan H. Grabel, Andrea M. Taylor, Osborn Maledon, Phoenix

, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae A rizona Investment CouncilAndrew M. Jacobs, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Tucson, Timothy J. Sabo, W. Danny Green, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UNS Gas, Inc.

John J. Egb ert, Kerry A. Hodges, Jennings

, S trouss & S almon, P

. L

. C

. , Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Southwest Gas Corporation

David F. Gaona, G aona Law Firm, Phoenix, A ttorneys for Amicus C uriae
Arizona Public Service C ompany

PER CURIAM :

¶ 1 We granted review in this case to consider whether the court of appeals erred in holding that (1) Qwest Corporation ’s tariff(s) limit ed its liability for service interruption to non

- customer US Airways, Inc., and (2) Qwest contractor ELM Locating and Utili ty Services owed no duty to US Airways. We have jurisdiction under article 6, s ection 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12

- 120.24.

¶ 2 After considering the briefs and oral arguments, the Court

affirms the court of appeals’ resolution of these issues as set forth in paragraphs 1

- 30 of its opinion . Although we did not grant review of the issue resolved in paragraphs 31

- 35 of the opinion, we depublish those paragraphs.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATIONS April 13, 2005 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549 Ladies and Gentlemen: The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on
Form 20-F (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code. Heinz Sundt, the Chief Executive Officer and Stefano Colombo, the Chief Financial Officer of
Telekom Austria AG, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:  1.

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and2.

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Telekom Austria AG.  /s/ Heinz SundtName:
    Heinz SundtChief Executive Officer/s/ Stefano ColomboName:
    Stefano ColomboChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Charles W. Jepson, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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 Extended
     Systems Incorporated.


/s/ CHARLES W. JEPSON
----------------------------
Charles W. Jepson
Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004



<PAGE>

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Valerie A. Heusinkveld, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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 Extended
     Systems Incorporated.


/s/ VALERIE A. HEUSINKVELD
-----------------------------
Valerie A. Heusinkveld
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004