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

   SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED PORTFOLIO:

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

                            DWS Strategic Income VIP


The following information replaces similar disclosure regarding the iGAP
strategy under "The Portfolio's Main Investment Strategy" section of the
portfolio's prospectuses:

iGAP Strategy. In addition to the portfolio's main investment strategy, the
Advisor seeks to enhance returns by employing a global tactical asset allocation
overlay strategy. This strategy, which the Advisor calls iGAP (integrated Global
Alpha Platform), attempts to take advantage of short- and medium-term
mispricings within global equity, bond and currency markets. The iGAP strategy
is implemented through the use of derivatives, which are contracts or other
instruments whose value is based on, for example, indices, currencies or
securities. The iGAP strategy primarily uses exchange-traded futures contracts
on global bonds, equities and currencies and over-the-counter forward currency
contracts, and is expected to have a low correlation with the portfolio's
securities holdings.

The following information replaces similar disclosure in William Chepolis'
biographical information in "The Portfolio Managers" section of the portfolio's
prospectuses:

  o   Portfolio Manager for Retail Fixed Income: New York.
  o   Joined the portfolio in 2005.










               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference





                                                                     [Logo]DWS
                                                                   INVESTMENTS
                                                           Deutsche Bank Group
October 17, 2008
VS-3613
#### Elaine M. REY, Petitioner, v. Joseph REY, Jr., Respondent.

No. 44206.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 360.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and- DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., dissent.
256 La. 1151

#### Howard HERBERT v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 50962.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Howard Herbert applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So.2d 367.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.

SUMMERS, Justice,

is of the opinion the reduction of quantum is contrary to the rule of Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239, 158 So.2d 149 (1963) and the cases which have applied that rule. Although paying lip service to that rule of law, the Court of Appeal has violated its spirit.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Scott C. Hennessy, as President and Chief Executive Officer of True Temper Sports, Inc. (the "Company"), state and certify that this
Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in this Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/SCOTT C. HENNESSYScott C. Hennessy President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)November 14, 2007 | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
69°15'E 69°30°E

68°E 68°15'E 68°30°E 68°45'E
4g0000 590000
35°45'N < 2 pe gr gy ge
3g 0000 ~--=5- pape hagng tithe
35°30'N
390000 a ae
35°15'N we aes SAAT LG = ow De ee or oe a rg ae oe SP ee
3g 90000 ae <3 ‘ . : v ‘ wren "ee ‘ r J ce, | dite Fee
(4 "
ae
wm een
at
~
ae
Sg 0000 P
me .
35°N ) 3 a” oe AZ i ‘A
EXPLANATION 0 10 KILOMETERS
— Road & Peak /——__-
—--— Stream, mostly intermittant [__] Image quadrant or tile 0 5S MILES

O City, town, or village
—- Province boundary
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1715 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1715

To amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the authority of States 
 and localities to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes, in 
                    relation to rifles or shotguns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2021

  Ms. Stefanik (for herself, Mr. Jacobs of New York, Ms. Tenney, Mr. 
Zeldin, Mr. Reed, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Duncan) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the authority of States 
 and localities to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes, in 
                    relation to rifles or shotguns.

    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 ``Second Amendment Guarantee Act'' or 
the ``SAGA Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF STATES AND LOCALITIES TO REGULATE 
              CONDUCT IN RELATION TO RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS.

    Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``(a) Except as 
        provided in subsection (b), no''; and
            (2) by adding after and below the end the following:
    ``(b)(1) A State or a political subdivision of a State may not 
impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing 
requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, 
transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved 
in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, 
that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge 
with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount 
greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law 
of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, 
on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the 
preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes 
of this subsection, the term `rifle or shotgun' includes any part of a 
rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, 
and any type of pistol grip or stock design.
    ``(2) In an action brought for damages or relief from a violation 
of paragraph (1), the court shall award the prevailing plaintiff a 
reasonable attorney's fee in addition to any other damages or relief 
awarded.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2005254EN.01005401.xml

| 30.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 254/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 254/54

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1598/2005

of 29 September 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 23 to 29 September 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
July 12, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ST. LUKE'S SUGAR LAND HOSPITAL, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00932-CV V.

PAUL JOSEPH, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s order in favor of appellee, Paul Joseph, 

signed October 6, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find no error in the trial court’s order. We order the order of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, St. Luke's Sugar Land Hospital, to pay all costs incurred in 

this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF 
                  AMERICAN OILFIELD DIVERS, INC.


American Inland Divers, Inc.  (a Louisiana corporation)

American Inland Divers, Inc.  (a Kansas corporation)

American Inland Marine, Inc.  (an Ohio corporation)

American Pacific Marine, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

American International Diving, Ltd.  (a Cayman Islands corporation) 

American Marine Construction, Inc.  (a Delaware corporation)

American Pollution Control, Inc.  (a Delaware corporation)

Big Inch Marine Systems, Inc.  (a Delaware corporation)

Big Inch Marine Systems, Ltd.  (a U.K. corporation)

Tarpon Systems, Inc.  (a Louisiana corporation)

Tarpon Concrete Structural Systems, Inc.  (a Louisiana corporation)

American Oilfield Divers (Nigeria), Ltd.  (a Nigerian corporation)

S&H Diving, L.L.C. (a Louisiana limited liability company)

AOD Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Hard Suits Inc.  (a British Columbia corporation)

International Hard Suits, Ltd.  (a British Columbia corporation)

Sea Urchin Submersibles Ltd. (a British Columbia corporation)

CDC Can-Dive, Ltd. (50%-owned joint venture Scotland corporation)

Can Dive Marine Services, Inc.  (a Washington corporation)

Hard Suits Marine, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Hard Suits Gulf, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Can Dive Marine Services, Ltd.  (a U.K. corporation)

GMC-Candive Ltd. (a 50% owned joint venture Scotland corporation)

Can Dive Marine Services, ltd. (a British Columbia corporation)

BMD-Can-Dive Ltd. (a 50% owned joint venture Ontario corporation)

485836 British Columbia Ltd. (a British Columbia corporation)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29345]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Correction to Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration

    On October 22, 1997, the Federal Register published a Biweekly 
Notice of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving 
No Significant Hazards Consideration. On page 54881, under Baltimore 
Gas and Electric Company, information from another notice was 
electronically merged with this notice causing an inaccurate 
publication. A copy of the notice, in its entirety, as it should have 
appeared follows:
    Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, 
Calvert
    Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, 
Maryland.
    Date of application for amendments: March 28, 1996, as supplemented 
November 20, 1996, and July 31, 1997.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the 
moderator temperature coefficient limit shown on Technical 
Specification Figure 3.1.1-1. This proposed change is necessary to 
support changes in the safety analyses made to accommodate a larger 
number of plugged steam generator tubes for future operating cycles.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 1997.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 222 and 198.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 1996 (61 FR 
20843).
    The November 20, 1996, and July 31, 1997, letters provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 1997.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Calvert County Library, Prince 
Frederick, Maryland 20678.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects III/V, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-29345 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Madison Square Garden, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-54942];
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: March 18, 2010
    /s/ Robert M. PollichinoRobert M. PollichinoExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3735 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3735

  To prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from finalizing, 
implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule with respect to conflicts of 
   interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by 
    broker-dealers and investment advisers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2024

  Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, and Mr. Rounds) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from finalizing, 
implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule with respect to conflicts of 
   interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by 
    broker-dealers and investment advisers, 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 ``Protecting Innovation in Investment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING, IMPLEMENTING, OR ENFORCING A 
              PROPOSED RULE WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
              ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF PREDICTIVE DATA ANALYTICS BY 
              BROKER-DEALERS AND INVESTMENT ADVISERS.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission may not finalize, implement, 
or enforce--
            (1) the proposed rule of the Commission entitled 
        ``Conflicts of Interest Associated With the Use of Predictive 
        Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers'' (88 
        Fed. Reg. 53960 (August 9, 2023)); or
            (2) any rule that is substantially similar to the rule 
        described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                                  TISM, INC.

                 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


    WHEREAS, TISM, Inc. (the "Company") adopted a stock option plan known as the
TISM, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of eligible employees
as determined from time to time by its Board of Directors; and

    WHEREAS, the Company has amended and restated the Plan from time to time;
and

    WHEREAS, the Company most recently amended and restated the Plan effective
December 14, 1999 at which time the TISM, Inc. Third Amended and Restated Stock
Option Plan was adopted; and

    WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan by a First Amendment to the
TISM, Inc. Third Amended and Restated Stock Option Agreement ("First Amendment")
effective as of March 22, 2000.

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by this First Amendment effective
as of March 22, 2000, follows:

    1.  Section 4 (a) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

        "(a)  Number of Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4
(c), the aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be the subject of awards
granted under the Plan shall be 6,836,739 shares of Class A-3 Common Stock and
62,576 shares of Class L Common Stock. If any award granted under the Plan
terminated without having been exercised in full, or upon exercise is satisfied
other than by delivery of Stock, the number of shares of Stock as to which such
award was not exercised shall be available for future grants."

    2.  Except as amended by virtue of the provisions hereof, the provisions of
the Plan presently in effect are hereby ratified and affirmed.

                                      ***
**EXHIBIT      32.1/32.2**

| (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ John              Probandt                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                   |   |   |        |
| Name:                John ProbandtTitle:                Chief Executive and Financial OfficerDate:                August 13, 2007 |   |   |   |

----