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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4336 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4336

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 
to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card program and to prohibit the use 
 of documentation issued in connection with immigration proceedings to 
           establish eligibility for Federal public benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2024

  Mr. Hawley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 
to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card program and to prohibit the use 
 of documentation issued in connection with immigration proceedings to 
           establish eligibility for Federal public benefits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Taxpayer Funds for Illegal 
Immigrant Identity Cards Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

    The purposes of this Act are--
            (1) to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from 
        using Federal funds to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card 
        program or any other Federal program that issues free identity 
        cards to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United 
        States.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS.

    (a) ICE Secure Docket Card.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no Federal funds may be used to establish, implement, or otherwise 
support the activities of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Secure Docket Card program or of any other similar program of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
    (b) Proof of Identification.--No documentation, in any form, which 
was issued for the primary purpose of providing access to information 
regarding the status of an individual's immigration proceedings, may be 
used as proof of identification for the purpose of establishing 
eligibility for any Federal public benefit (as defined in section 
401(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(c))).

SEC. 4. REPORT.

     Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall 
submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
House of Representatives that describes the establishment, operation, 
and any costs associated with the ICE Secure Docket Card program or any 
other Federal program that issues free identity cards to aliens who are 
unlawfully present in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4644 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase funding 

for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF (for himself and Mr. WARNOCK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

to increase funding for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, 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 ‘‘City of Atlanta Water 

5 Infrastructure Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. 

7 Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Develop8 ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4644 IS

1 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
In The Matter Of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. ) 

## H

BEM SYSTEMS, INC. ) FDMS No. FAA-2016-4264 ) Respondent ) FAA Case No. 2015NM730029 ) ) Hon. Douglas M. Rawald COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORDECISION Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(£)(5), Complainant moves for a decisionwithrespectto the violations alleged inthe complaint. This motion is based on the pleadings. Specifically, in its

answer to the complaint, BEM Systems, Inc., through its ChiefFinancial Officer, Mark Murset, states that it does not dispute any ofthe claims in the complaint. Rather, BEM Systems, Inc., is only contesting the amount ofthe civil penalty. Based on this answer, there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact withrespect to the violations, and the Agency is entitled to a decision finding established each allegation set forth in the numberedparagraphs in Section II ofthe complaint and eachregulatory violation set forth in Section III ofthe complaint as a matter oflaw. Datedthis 15th day ofSeptember 2016. Patricia A. MeNall Acting Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement By: Glenn H. Brown Enforcement Division, Western Team 222 W 7th Avenue Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 email: glenn.brown@faa.gov telephone: (907) 271-5271 (direct) (907) 271-2800 (fax)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: BEM Systems, Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2016-4264 I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy ofthe foregoing Motion for Decision by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and by either facsimile transmission or electronic mail, as indicated, to the following: The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 BEM Systems, Inc. ATTN: Mark Murset, CFO 100 Passaic Avenue Chatham, NJ 07928 Email: mmurset@bemsys.com 2

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and one copy ofthe foregoing Motion for Decisionbypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 DATED:-+

# I~Qol~

Office ofRegional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587
<PAGE>

                    Abgenix Contemplates Private Placement of Common Stock


FREMONT, Calif., Nov. 10/PRNewswire/ -- Abgenix, Inc. (Nasdaq: ABGX)
announced today that it is contemplating a private placement of newly issued
shares of Common Stock to institutional and other accredited investors. No
other details were provided.

The Company stated that it would use the net proceeds from any such private
placement for research and development, including clinical trials and
preclinical testing of the Company's product candidates, and for working
capital and general corporate purposes.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of
an offer to buy any securities. The Common Stock to be offered will not be
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or applicable state
securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent
registration under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or
available exemptions from such registration requirements.

Statements made in this press release about Abgenix's plans regarding a
potential future financing are forward looking statements and are subject to
a number of uncertainties that could cause actual events to differ materially
from the statements made, including risks associated with the success of
clinical trials, the progress of research and product development programs,
the regulatory approval process, competitive products, future capital
requirements and the extent and breadth of Abgenix's patent portfolio. Please
see Abgenix's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
information about risks that may affect Abgenix,

/CONTACT: Kurt Leutzinger, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
          Abgenix Inc., 510-608-6575/
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON, No. 2:04-cv-1317-MCE-GGH-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

J. FANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On May 24, 2006, the magistrate judge issued an order granting defendants an extension

of time to take plaintiff’s deposition and to file dispositive motions. On July 3, 2006, plaintiff

filed a request for reconsideration of that order. On July 14, 2006, the court denied the request

for reconsideration on grounds that it was untimely.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the July 14, 2006, order. Plaintiff states

that on June 20, 2006, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff a thirty day extension of time to file

his request for reconsideration. 

Good cause appearing, the July 14, 2006, order is vacated and the court considers the

merits of plaintiff’s request.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 76 Filed 09/21/06 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

2

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does

not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The July 14, 2006, order is vacated;

2. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed May 24, 2006, is

affirmed. 

DATED: September 21, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 76 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
December 17, 1953

No. 57706.

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

protests 170244-K, etc.

C. D. 1560. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
Case No. 13,771.

#### TAYLOE v. VARDEN.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 37.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

Trespass — Possession Necessary to Maintain.

Possession in fact, or in law, is necessary to maintain trespass quare clausum fregit.

Upon a case stated, the question was whether Tayloe had such a possession as would authorize him to bring trespass. Varden, in 1806, took possession while the title to the freehold was in H. Lee, who never had any other seisin or possession than what was conveyed to him by the deed of bargain and sale from Pollock. Varden was in possession when Lee made the deed of bargain and sale to Tayloe, and continued in possession until this suit was brought. Tayloe never had entered, even if he had a right to enter.

THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

was clearly of opinion that, as Lee was out of possession when .he made the deed of bargain and sale to Tayloe, the latter had not the possession, either in fact, or by construction of law; and therefore could not maintain an action of trespass.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1(b)


SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED A CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT IN THE FORM FILED AS EXHIBIT 10.1(a) TO THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10‐Q OF THE COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 (this “Schedule”)
This Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Executed a Change in Control Agreement relates to the form of Change in Control Agreement filed by Independent Bank Group, Inc. as Exhibit 10.1(a) to its Quarterly Report on Form 10‐Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016 (the “Form Agreement”). This Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the details in which the specific agreements executed in the form of the Form Agreement differ from the Form Agreement, and, in particular to set forth the persons who, with Independent Bank Group, Inc., were parties to the Change in Control Agreements in such form as of September 30, 2016.
	
			
	Executive Officer Who is a Party to such Change in Control Agreement
	Date of Change in Control Agreement
	The number of times the sum of (a) Executive’s current base salary plus (b) Executive’s target total annual bonus for the year of termination paid upon a Change in Control

	David R. Brooks
	July 26, 2016
	Three (3) times

	Daniel W. Brooks
	July 26, 2016
	Two (2) times

	Michelle S. Hickox
	July 26, 2016
	Two (2) times

	Brian E. Hobart
	July 26, 2016
	Two (2) times
##### 



Exhibit 10(v)
 KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC.
2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
(as amended December 28, 2006)
 General
 Purpose of the Plan
  Effective Date of the Plan
 Administration of the Plan




---



##### 



Key Employees Eligible for Grants
 Shares Subject to the Plan
 Page 2




---



##### 











Stock Option Provisions


General


Stock Option Price Page 3




---



##### 



Period of Stock Option
 Limitations on Exercise and Transfer of Stock Options
 Employment, Holding Period Requirements For Certain Options
 Payment for Stock Option Price
 Page 4




---



##### 



Certain Reissuances of Stock Options
    Cancellation and Replacement of Stock Options and Related Rights
 Limitation on Exercisable Incentive Stock Options
 Page 5




---



##### 



Restricted Stock
 Grant
 Terms and Conditions
      Page 6




---



##### 



Minimum Value Provisions
 Stock Appreciation Rights
    Page 7




---



##### 



Termination of Employment
  Page 8
         Change of Control
  Amendments to Plan
      Page 9




---



##### 



Investment Representation, Approvals and Listing
   General Provisions
 Termination of This Plan Page 10
         KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC.By
    
    /s/ Mark J. PlushAnd
    
    /s/ Joseph P. Keithley
 Page 11
No. 51696

#### Protests 997281-G, etc., of Merrill, Clark & Meinig, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Rule No(s): 26.10 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: June 28, 2011

Rule Title(s): New Source Review - Prevention Of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Date Submitted to ARB: August 9, 2011

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): January 13, 1998

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No (If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Donald R. Price Phone Number: 805/645-1407 E-mail Address: don@vcapcd.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) is a federal pre-construction permitting program for facilities located 

in areas that are classified as attainment for particular pollutants. PSD Rule 26.10, which required a PSD permit 

from EPA, has been repealed.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission 

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: 

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: Area Affected: 

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible):
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: 

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: 

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): 

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): 

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and 

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100%

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: zero Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A%

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as 

necessary): N/A

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: 

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Work Practice Standards in Section(s): 

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): Reporting Requirements in Section(s): 
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002

3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

 No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion:
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donovan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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/ Donovan Jones                     | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Donovan Jones                         | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 

March 12, 2010

I, David Karp, Chief Financial Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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/ David Karp                                   | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|David Karp                                       | 
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary | 

March 12, 2010

---
No. 54039.

#### Balex Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138098-K, etc. (New York).

*375Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of Alliant Energy Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2006:

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State or Country of Incorporation |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------|

 

| Interstate Power and Light Company | Iowa |
|------------------------------------|------|

 

| Wisconsin Power and Light Company | Wisconsin |
|-----------------------------------|-----------|

 

| Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. | Wisconsin |
|--------------------------------|-----------|

 

|           Alliant Energy International, Inc. | Iowa |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|

 

 

**WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following is deemed to be a significant subsidiary of Wisconsin Power and Light Company as of Dec. 31, 2006:

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State of Incorporation |
|--------------------|------------------------|

 

| WPL Transco LLC | Wisconsin |
|-----------------|-----------|
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

 Every document submitted conventionally to the court must include a certificate stating

the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to respondent or his attorney and the

address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND GLADDEN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1866 FCD GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Counsel for petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a

traverse1 pursuant to the court’s order of March 30, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 4, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner shall file and serve a traverse on or before May 2, 2005.

DATED: 4/18/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb/glad1866.111+

Case 2:04-cv-01866-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 65512.

#### Alfred H. Marzolf *v.*United States,

protest 279703-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donuon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

December 31, 1942

No. 47858.

#### Protests 580305-G, etc., of Bingham & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the hats in question, valued at less than $3 per dozen, are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.