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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1613 

To secure the southern border of the United States against illegal border 

crossings, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2021 

Mrs. BOEBERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To secure the southern border of the United States against 

illegal border crossings, 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 ‘‘Stop the Biden Cara5 van Now Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SECURE SOUTHERN BORDER. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Sec9 retary of Defense, shall— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1613 IH

1 (1) transfer all structures, equipment, per2 sonnel, and other barriers used to provide additional 

3 security in the District of Columbia from January 

4 12 through the date of the enactment of this Act, 

5 including what was used for the Inauguration of Joe 

6 Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice 

7 President of the United States, to the southern bor8 der of the United States; 

9 (2) determine as soon as reasonably feasible 

10 where to erect and place the structures, equipment, 

11 personnel, and other barriers in order to impede to 

12 the greatest extent possible illegal border crossings 

13 into the United States; and 

14 (3) ensure such structures, equipment, per15 sonnel, and other barriers remain intact along the 

16 southern border until— 

17 (A) a determination is made by the Sec18 retary of Homeland Security, in consultation 

19 with the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs 

20 and Border Protection, that the southern bor21 der is secure and illegal border crossings are no 

22 longer feasible; and 

23 (B) such a determination made pursuant 

24 to subparagraph (A) is affirmed by a two-thirds 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1613 IH

1 majority vote in the House of Representatives 

2 and the Senate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Gulfstream

A GENERAL DVNAMICS COMPANY 1 November 2010 A&C-10-440 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, D.C

. 20590 Subject: Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3)for Structural Aspects of Fuel Tank Ignition Protection FAA Project No.: TC8700AT-T EASA Project No.: P-EASA.IM.A.169 Attachment: 1) Petition for Partial Exemption for 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3)for Structural Aspect of Fuel Tank Lightning Protection 2) Gulfstream Document GVI-GER-0127 Revision A, "Structural Assessmentfor Fuel Systems Lightning Protection Certification for FAA 14CFR25.981." Dear Sir/Madam: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) is respectfully submitting the enclosed petition for partial exemption to 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3), Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention. This request is accompanied bythe document noted in attachment 2, which provides supporting evidence that Gulfstream has taken all reasonable measures to complywith this regulation to the extent that it is practicable, and to provide analyticaljustification forthose areas in which full compliance cannot be achieved. Please note Gulfstream believes that because this request is not setting any new precedents, and is similarto exemptions granted previously, our petition includes a request for a reduced review and comment period. Ifthere are any questions, or if I can be offurther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (912) 965-5270, or Keith Candline at (912) 965-4817. Sincerely,



### - - - - - -------- -.--- ­ P
.o. Box 2206 • Savannah, GA 31402·2206 USA· Telephone (912) 965-3000 • gulfstream
. com
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

Alaska Air Group's Management Incentive Plan ("MIP") in effect for 2002 places
at risk a significant portion of each executive's potential cash compensation,
linking it to annual profitability and operational goals.

For awards to be paid, the Company must achieve profit and/or operating goals
established annually by the Compensation Committee. In 2002, the goals were
based on measures relating to unit revenues, unit costs, pretax profit, safety,
customer satisfaction and on-time performance.

Awards increase proportionately based on the degree to which threshold, target
and maximum goals are met. In 2002 the CEO could earn up to 130% of base pay,
depending on the extent to which the goals are reached. The other named
executives could earn up to 90% of base salary, depending on the extent to which
the goals are met and the executive's position. Award levels can be adjusted by
the Committee for individual performance.
Exhibit
32.1




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




I, Frank
Jakubaitis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of WECOSIGN, INC. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of  WECOSIGN, INC.





February
      28, 2010By:
            
            /s/    FRANK
      JAKUBAITISName:
            
            Frank
      JakubaitisTitle:
            
            Chief
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to WECOSIGN, INC. and will be retained by WECOSIGN, INC. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
September 2, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk via E-Filing

Third Court of Appeals

209 West 14th Street, Suite 101

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: No. 03-15-00285-CV, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, 

Inc. v. John Walker et al., in the Third Court of Appeals at Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Please be advised that I will be on vacation during the following periods: December 9-

11, 2015; January 19-29, 2016; and February 10-12, 2016. 

Should the Court decide to grant oral argument in the above-referenced appeal, I 

respectfully request that the argument not be set during those dates.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. Bruce Bennett

J. Bruce Bennett

cc: Shawn Stephens

Dennis McKinney

Kimberly Fuches

ACCEPTED

03-15-00285-CV

6759645

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/2/2015 10:54:19 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/2/2015 10:54:19 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
**Exhibit 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos.333-128528, 333-106307, 333-109433, 33-64968, and 333-15241) ofOXiGENE, Inc. and in the relatedProspectuses, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-05787,333-92747, 333-32958 and 333-117083) pertainingto the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 333-84870, 333-84872 and333-85860) pertaining to the Compensation Award Stock Agreements and the RestrictedStock Agreements between OXiGENE, Inc. and Certain Directors, Employees and Non-employees, andthe Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126636) pertaining to the 2005 Stock Plan, of our reportsdated March 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of OXiGENE, Inc.,OXiGENE, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of OXiGENE, Inc.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPBoston, Massachusetts
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
                                   One Beacon Street
                                   Boston, MA 02108

                                   August 27, 2008



Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20549


RE:  DWS Short  Duration Plus Fund (the  "Fund"),  a series of DWS Advisor Funds
     (the "Trust") (Reg. Nos. 33-07404, 811-04760)


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Trust
hereby certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information that would have been filed on behalf of the Fund's Institutional
Class shares pursuant to Rule 497(c) upon the effectiveness of Post-Effective
Amendment No. 161 to the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (the
"Amendment"), do not differ from that contained in the Amendment, which is the
most recent amendment to such Registration Statement and was filed
electronically on August 22, 2008.

Any comments or questions on this filing should be directed to the undersigned
at (617) 295-3986.

                                   Very truly yours,


                                   /s/Scott D. Hogan
                                   Scott D. Hogan
                                   Vice President
                                   Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.

cc:      Mary Carty, Esq., Willkie Farr & Gallagher
#### AMERICAN LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Waco Equipment Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Robert L. GOSSARD et al., Appellees.

No. 71-149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 2, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County ; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Lewis E. JOHNSON v. CAPITOL CITY PRESS, INC., et al.

No. 60248.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: Lewis E. Johnson, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 346 So.2d 819.

Writ denied. Judgment of Court of Appeal is correct.
EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL  PERSONS  BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that each  person  whose  signature
appears below hereby constitutes and appoints John C. East, Henry L. Perret, and
David  L.  Van  De  Hey,   and  each  of  them  acting   individually,   as  his
attorney-in-fact,  each with full power of substitution,  for him in any and all
capacities,  to sign any and all  amendments  to this Annual Report on Form 10-K
and to file the same,  with exhibits  thereto and other  documents in connection
therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange  Commission,  hereby  ratifying and
confirming  all  that  each  of said  attorneys-in-fact,  or his  substitute  or
substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

     Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, this
Annual  Report on Form 10-K has been signed  below by the  following  persons on
behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                Signature                                          Title                                Date
------------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------------------   ----------------
<S>                                         <C>                                                    <C>
              /s/ John C. East              President and Chief  Executive  Officer  (Principal    March 27, 1998
              (John C. East)                Executive Officer) and Director

             /s/ Henry L. Perret            Vice  President  of  Finance  and  Chief  Financial    March 27, 1998
            (Henry L. Perret)               Officer   (Principal   Financial   and   Accounting
                                            Officer)

                                            Director
            (Keith B. Geeslin)

             /s/ Jos C. Henkens             Director                                               March 27, 1998
             (Jos C. Henkens)

         /s/ Frederic N. Schwettmann        Director                                               March 27, 1998
        (Frederic N. Schwettmann)

            /s/ Robert G. Spencer           Director                                               March 27, 1998
           (Robert G. Spencer)
</TABLE>
*District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by

designation.

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 02-50818

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE EDWARD TERRY, JR. also known as Clarence Edward Terry,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

Civil Docket #W-01-CR-25-1

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and KAZEN*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:*
2

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel. Finding no reversible

error of fact or law, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 

Terry first objects to the district court’s instruction

to the jury to consider his guilt of the lesser offense of second

degree murder if “. . . after all reasonable efforts, you are

unable to reach a verdict, . . .” on first degree murder. Even

assuming that Terry properly preserved his objection to this

instruction, which follows the Fifth Circuit pattern jury

instructions, the trial court did not err. This instruction was

more favorable to the defense than the 1990 version, which required

the jury to acquit the defendant before they could move on to the

lesser offense. 

Terry also contends that the court’s instruction to the

jury on a sudden quarrel was inadequate, but this issue must be

reviewed for plain error only. The term “sudden quarrel” is

sufficiently clear as not to have required further definition by

the district court. There was no error. 

Third, Terry asserts that his counsel was ineffective for

failing to object to “expert” testimony regarding blood splatter

evidence, particularly because the district court practically

invited such an objection. Even if the testimony was improperly

admitted, however, Terry cannot establish prejudice under the
3

Strickland test, due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence

against him. 

Similarly, because of the extensive incriminating

evidence against Terry, especially his own confession, Terry’s

challenge to the sufficiency of malice aforethought and

premeditation evidence lacks merit. The gruesome details and

extended duration of the attack on Nicole Johnson fully supported

the jury’s determination.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>




                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                          China World Trade Corporation

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

                              SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Agreement dated 12 September 2002 entered into between and by:

PARTY A: China World Trade Corporation, c/o 4th Floor Goldlion Network Center,
         138 Tiyu Road East, Tianhe, Guangzhou, the PRC 510620

PARTY B: I & V Ltd., c/o Suites 1202-4, Tower Two, The Gateway, 25-27 Canton
         Road, Tsimshatsui, Hong Kong

                                    RECITALS

         Party A is a public company with business provided in the major areas
of business recreational club, online trading services, and trading brokerage
and agency services; and Party A owed Party B a total amount of US$317,979.00
(the "Consideration Amount") resulting of the debt assignments from Mr. John
Hui.

WHEREAS:

1.       Party B agrees to convert the Consideration Amount that Party A owned
         into the shares of the common stock of Party A which shall rank
         pari-passu to the existing common stock; and Party A agrees to issue or
         cause to issue a total of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (500,000) POST 30-TO-1
         REVERSE SPLIT SHARES of its common stock to Party B for the settlement
         of the Consideration Amount (the "Transaction").

2.       Party A agrees to pay for all the expenses in relation to the issuance
         of its shares of common stock to Party B.

3.       Upon signing of this Agreement and the completion of the issuance of
         shares of the common stock of Party A to Party B, neither Party A nor
         Party B would claim the counter party for any form of additional damage
         and/or settlement regarding the Consideration Amount.

4.       Both parties agree to keep all information regarding the Transaction
         and its business or affairs which are known to the Parties in
         connection with this Agreement strictly confidential and shall release
         such information only to parties authorized by either party.

5.       This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Hong Kong Special
         Administrative Region and the Parties shall submit to the jurisdiction
         thereof.

For and on behalf of                   For and on behalf of
Party A                                Party B

/s/ John Hui                           /s/ Authorized Signature
-------------------------------        -------------------------------
Mr. John HUI                           For and on behalf of I & V LTD
                                       Authorized Signature(s)
# L_2005347EN.01009901.xml

| 30.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 347/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 347/99

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2163/2005 of 22 December 2005 providing for the rejection of applications for export licences for beef and veal products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 342 of 24 December 2005
  )

On the cover in the Contents, on page 70 in the title and in the signature:

for:

‘
  22 December 2005
  ’,

read:

‘
  23 December 2005
  ’.

---
#### J. W. HAWTHORNE et ux. v. J. O. SLAYDON et al.

No. 62637.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: James Andrew Slaydon applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of St. Tammany.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33478]


Maumee & Western, L.L.C.--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Norfolk and Western Railway Company

    Maumee & Western, L.L.C. (MAW), a noncarrier, has filed a verified 
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the Norfolk 
and Western Railway Company (NW) and to operate the Maumee Line 
(Line),<SUP>1</SUP> consisting of approximately 51 miles of rail line, 
from Liberty Center, OH (milepost TN-28.0), to Woodburn, IN (milepost 
79.0). In addition, MAW will also grant NW limited incidental local 
access trackage rights over MAW's line between milepost TN-77.8 and 
milepost TN-79.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ R. Franklin Unger, Trustee of the Indiana Hi Rail 
Corporation currently leases and operates the Line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after the 
October 15, 1997 effective date of the exemption. The transaction is 
related to the Hi Rail Trustee's filing of an Amended Plan of 
Reorganization with the Board in STB Finance Docket No. 33491 on 
October 3, 1997.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding 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. 33478, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Richard R. Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite 403, 
Altoona, PA 16002.

    Decided: October 21, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28791 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 1E-245

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

September 27, 2004

Purpose

Interested persons will have an opportunity to provide comments to the Department on its

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) on test procedures for distribution

transformers.

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Introduction and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Overview of the Proposed Rule

Cyrus Nasseri

This presentation sets the context, and provides a review of the

process to date and an overview of the five areas that will be

discussed during today's public meeting.

9:30-10: 15 am Comments and Issues from Participants

This is an open forum for participants to make a brief summary

statement and/or identify their key issues regarding the SNOPR

proposal.

For each of the topics that follows, DOE will make a brief introduction followed

by comments-from participants.

10:15-10:30 am Break

10:30-11:30 am Definition of a Distribution Transformer

Mike Scholand

This topic concerns the Department's proposed definition of

Distribution Transformer.

EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 45.2
11:30-12:15 pm Definition of Basic Model

Mike Scholand

This topic concerns the Department's proposed definition of

"Basic Model," the finest level of disaggregation at which

manufacturers would rate the energy efficiency of Distribution

Transformers.

12:15-1:15 pm Lunch

1:15-2:00 pm Uniform Test Method for Measuring Energy Consumption

Oskars Petersons

This topic concerns the proposed test method by which

manufacturers and the Department would test Distribution

Transformers to determine their efficiency rating.

2:00-3:00 pm Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement Testing

Oskars Petersons and Ken Stricklett

This topic concerns the Department's proposed sampling plan

by which manufacturers may rate their products and

demonstrate compliance with a minimum efficiency

performance standard.

3:00-3:15 pm Break

3:15-4:15 pm Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM)

Ken Stricklett

This topic introduces and describes the AEDM, and discusses

how a manufacturer may choose to substantiate and then use

the AEDM to reduce testing burden.

4:15- 5:00 pm Other Issues

This is an opportunity to discuss any remaining issues

identified earlier in the Comments and Issues segment of the

agenda.

5:00 pm Adjourn

EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 45.2