alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PRIVATE LAW 105–1—JULY 29, 1997

Private Law 105–1

105th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Michel Christopher Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili,

and Davide Meili.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The actions of Swiss banks and their relations with

Nazi Germany before and during World War II and the banks’

actions after the war concerning former Nazi loot and heirless

assets placed in the banks before the war have been the subject

of an extensive and ongoing inquiry by the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and a

study by a United States interagency group.

(2) On January 8, 1997, Michel Christopher Meili, while

performing his duties as a security guard at the Union Bank

of Switzerland in Zurich, Switzerland, discovered that bank

employees were shredding important Holocaust-era documents.

(3) Mr. Meili was able to save some of the documents

from destruction and then turned them over to the Jewish

community in Zurich and to the Swiss police.

(4) Following Mr. Meili’s disclosure of the destruction of

the Holocaust-era documents, Mr. Meili was suspended and

then terminated from his job. He was also interrogated by

the local Swiss authorities who tried to intimidate him by

threatening prosecution for his heroic actions.

(5) Since this disclosure, Mr. Meili and his family have

been threatened and harassed, and have received many death

threats. Mr. Meili also received a hand-delivered note threatening the kidnapping of his children in return for the ‘‘Jewish

money’’ he would receive for his actions, and urging him to

emigrate to the United States or be killed.

(6) Because of his courageous actions, Mr. Meili and his

family have suffered economic hardship, mental anguish, and

have been forced to live in fear for their lives.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Michel

Christopher Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili, and

Davide Meili shall be held and considered to have been lawfully

admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the

date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required

visa fees.

July 29, 1997

[S. 768]
PRIVATE LAW 105–1—JULY 29, 1997

SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

Upon the granting of permanent residence to Michel Christopher Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili, and Davide

Meili as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct

the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number during

the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas available

to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Approved July 29, 1997.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2981 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2981

     To require review of tax regulatory actions by the Office of 
      Information and Regulatory Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 28 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require review of tax regulatory actions by the Office of 
      Information and Regulatory Affairs, and for other purposes.

    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 ``IRS Accountability and Transparency 
Act''.

SEC. 2. OIRA REVIEW OF TAX REGULATORY ACTIONS.

    Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(f)(1) In this subsection--
                    ``(A) the term `regulatory action' means any 
                substantive action by an agency (normally published in 
                the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected 
                to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, including 
                notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed 
                rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking; and
                    ``(B) the term `tax regulatory action' means a 
                regulatory action issued by the Internal Revenue 
                Service, whether pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code 
                of 1986 or with respect to any other United States 
                Federal income, excise, estate, gift, or employment 
                tax, that may--
                            ``(i) create a serious consistency or 
                        otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
                        planned by another agency;
                            ``(ii) raise novel legal or policy issues, 
                        such as by prescribing a rule of conduct backed 
                        by an assessable payment; or
                            ``(iii) have an annual non-revenue effect 
                        on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, 
                        measured against a no-action baseline.
    ``(2) Each tax regulatory action shall be subject to review by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, including compliance 
under section 6 of Executive Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating 
to regulatory planning and review).''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33465]


CSX Transportation, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--East 
Tennessee Railway, L.P.

    East Tennessee Railway, L.P. (ETRY), has agreed to grant overhead 
trackage rights to CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), over main line 
trackage of ETRY between turnouts to be constructed at a point 
approximately 39 feet west of derail located on ETRY's #2 track and a 
point approximately 80 feet west of the west line of Buffalo Street in 
Johnson City, TN, a total distance of approximately 1,900 feet, 
exclusive of turnouts.<SUP>1</SUP> The transaction is expected to be 
consummated after completion of the construction of two connection 
tracks between CSXT and ETRY, but not earlier than October 2, 1997, the 
effective date of the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  CSXT is acquiring overhead trackage rights only and will 
not be allowed to perform any local freight service of any kind to 
ETRY's patrons at any point located on the joint trackage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed trackage rights is to allow CSXT to 
rationalize approximately 1,900 feet of its trackage through Cherry 
Street in downtown Johnson City, TN, which is a high maintenance and 
high risk area in the City.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not 
automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33465, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001 and served on: Charles M. Rosenberger, Senior 
Counsel, CSX Transportation, Inc., 500 Water Street, J-150, 
Jacksonville, FL 32202.

    Decided: October 2, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26836 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26083]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-150-008]


Richfield Gas Storage System; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 23, 1997, Richfield Gas Storage 
System (Richfield) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Substitute Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the 
filing, to be effective November 1, 1997.
    Richfield asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order No. 587-C, Standards for Business Practices of 
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines issued on March 4, 1997 in Docket No. 
RM96-1-004.
    Richfield states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26083 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Mary F. Kane, Plaintiff, *v.*Kane Ship Repair Corp., Defendant. Kane Ship Repair Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff, *v.*John T. Kane, Third-Party Defendant. John T. Kane, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, *v.*Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Fourth-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

July 31, 1952.

*531
      *George A. Garvey*for fourth-party defendant and Kane Ship Repair Corp., defendant and third-party plaintiff.

*Adolph Koeppel*for plaintiff.

*Wallach & Wallach*for John T. Kane, tbird-partv defendant and fourth-party plaintiff.

Moss, J.

This is a motion by the Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, a third-party defendant, sued herein as “ fourth party defendant,” for an order dismissing the third-party complaint against it pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act, and subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Plaintiff, a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by defendant, instituted an action for personal injuries based upon the negligent operation of the automobile by her husband, an employee of defendant. Defendant, by way of a third-party complaint, impleaded as a defendant its employee, plaintiff’s husband, by reason of his active negligence. The latter third-party defendant cross-complained and impleaded the above insurance company for the purpose of obtaining ultimate relief against it under a policy of insurance whereby it is alleged it agreed to indemnify the original defendant and third-party plaintiff, Kane Ship Repair Corporal on, as well as John T. Kane, third-party defendant, for all loss or damage resulting from any action brought for personal injuries or property damages sustained in the operation of the motor vehicle. Assuming the truth of the facts, a good cause of action

*532has been stated as a matter of pleading *(Brooklyn Yarn Dye Co.*v. *Empire State Warehouse Corp.,*276 App. Div. 611; *Caserta*v. *Beaver Constr. Corp.,*197 Misc. 410; *Remch*v. *Grabow,*193 Misc. 731). The motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, is therefore denied. As to the motion under subdivision 4 of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act: notwithstanding the rule that in negligence cases the admission of evidence that the defendant carried liability insurance is reversible error *(Simpson*v. *Foundation Co.,*201 N. Y. 479), the Appellate Division in this department has permitted the impleader of a disclaiming insurance carrier *(Adelman Mfg. Corp.*v. *New York Wood Finisher’s Supply Co.,*277 App. Div. 1117; *Brooklyn Yarn Dye Co. v. Empire State Warehouse Corp., supra).*However, this still leaves the court discretion to dispose of the third-party complaint in the best interests of justice. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss under this section is also denied, but the action of John T. Kane against Indemnity Insurance Company of North America is severed so as to avoid any possible disclosure to the jury that the defendants in the first two actions are insured *(Remch*v. *Grabow, supra; Caserta*v. *Beaver Constr. Corp., supra).*Settle order on notice.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification 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 Annual Report of United Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350, as adopted pursuant to '906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/*s*/ Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson

 

Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson

Executive Vice President

Principal Financial Officer

June 8, 2017
Or rR.v:/r 

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20590 

January 22, 2020 

Policy Statement on Whistleblowing 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is committed to protecting current and former 

Federal employees and applicants for employment from interference and retaliation when 

making protected disclosures, or “whistleblowing,” which includes disclosing information 

related to a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; 

abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. The 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, the expanded protections provided by the Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), and the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 2017, protect individuals who report Federal agency misconduct from 

retaliation. 

These provisions strengthen protections for Federal employees who disclose evidence ofwaste, 

fraud, or abuse, and modify rules on the use of nondisclosure policies or agreements by 

government agencies. They also clarify that these agreements do not override employee rights 

and obligations created by existing statute or Executive Order relating to classified information; 

communications with Congress; reporting violations and/or misconduct to an Inspector General; 

or any other whistleblower protection. In addition. Presidential Policy Directive 19 extends 

whistleblower protections to Federal employees eligible for access to classified data and the 

Kirkpatrick Act of 2017 makes it unlawful to access a Federal employee’s or an applicant’s 

medical records for certain unauthorized purposes. 

The DOT will initiate appropriate actions against responsible persons who take, threaten to take, 

or fail to take a personnel action with respect to any employee, former employee, or applicant for 

employment because of any protected disclosure of information. In 2002, the Notification and 

Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act was enacted to make all Federal 

agencies accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws and 

the Kirkpatrick Act of 2017 enhances disciplinary penalties for supervisors who engage in 

whistleblowing retaliation. 

The DOT will not tolerate whistleblower retaliation. Legitimate disclosure of information by 

employees is an invaluable resource for the oversight of Government operations. I expect that 

employees are able to report these matters confidentially to the Department’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG), the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, or appropriate management officials. In 

accordance with the WPEA, a Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman has been designated in 

OIG to educate Agency personnel about whistleblower rights. 

I am committed to maintaining DOT’s role as a Federal agency that respects the rights of current 

and former Federal employees and applicants for employment to raise legitimate concerns 

without fear of retaliation. I ask you to join me in implementing and communicating this 

<2/iao 

Elaine L. Chao
Addendum No. 6 to Master Services Agreement



 
EXHIBIT
10.19.7 
 
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR
CERTAIN REDACTED PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE REDACTED PROVISIONS ARE IDENTIFIED BY THREE ASTERISKS ENCLOSED BY BRACKETS AND UNDERLINED. THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

 
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO 
MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 
THIS ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Addendum 6”) is dated as of November 22, 2002, by and between Exult, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Service Provider”) and Bank of America Corporation (“Customer”). All capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed to them in that certain Master Services Agreement dated
as of November 21, 2000 (as amended to date, the “Existing Agreement”), by and between Service Provider and Customer. 
 
R E C I T A L S 
 
WHEREAS, Service Provider and Customer desire to amend the Existing Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

	 1.	  	 The Existing Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	  	 a.	  	 Schedule B of the Existing Agreement (including any prior amendments thereto) is amended by replacing Table 3.1.3 in its entirety with Attachment 1 hereto.


 

	  	 b.	  	 Schedule B of the Existing Agreement (including any prior amendments thereto) is amended by replacing Table 3.2 in its entirety, with the Attachment 2 hereto.


 

	 2.	  	 In all other respects, the Existing Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof. In the event of any conflict
between the terms of the Existing Agreement and the terms set forth herein, the terms set forth herein shall prevail and govern the interpretation of the agreement between the parties hereto. 

 

1 








  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written. 
  
 EXULT, INC. 
  

 
 By:                                     
                            
 Name: 
 Title: 
  
  
  
  
 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

  
  
 By:                                     
                            
 Name: 
 Title: 
  
  
 By:                                     
                            
 Name: 
 Title: 
  
  

 
 2 








  
 ATTACHMENT 1 
  
 Key Performance Indicator Table (to replace table in Schedule B, section 3.1.3) 
  
 [***]* 
  

 
 3 








  
 ATTACHMENT 2 
  
 RSL Table (to replace table in Schedule B, section 3.2) 
  
 [***]* 

 
 4
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  James  K.  McHugh,  the  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  N-Viro International
Corporation,  certify  that  (i)  the  Form  10-KSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and  (ii)  the  information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of N-Viro
International  Corporation.


/s/  James  K.  McHugh
----------------------
James  K.  McHugh,  Chief  Financial  Officer
April  2,  2007
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2925 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to set the rate 

of pay for employees of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

in accordance with the General Schedule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to set the rate of pay for employees of the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection in accordance with 

the General Schedule. 

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 ‘‘CFPB Pay Fairness 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2925 IS

1 SEC. 2. RATE OF PAY FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF 

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1013(a)(2) of the Con4 sumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 

5 5493(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION.—The rates of basic pay 

7 for all employees of the Bureau shall be set and ad8 justed by the Director in accordance with the Gen9 eral Schedule set forth in section 5332 of title 5, 

10 United States Code.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

13 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB