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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3808 

To prohibit deployment of Federal air marshals to the southern and northern 

borders of the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit deployment of Federal air marshals to the southern and northern borders of the United States, 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 ‘‘No FAMS at the Bor5 der Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DEPLOYMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44917 of title 49, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(d) PROHIBITION ON DEPLOYMENT.— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3808 IS

1 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

2 ‘‘(A) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ has the 

3 meaning given that term in section 101 of the 

4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

5 1101). 

6 ‘‘(B) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COM7 MITTEES.—The term ‘appropriate congressional 

8 committees’ means— 

9 ‘‘(i) the Committee on Commerce, 

10 Science, and Transportation of the Senate; 

11 and 

12 ‘‘(ii) the Committee on Homeland Se13 curity of the House of Representatives. 

14 ‘‘(C) ILLEGAL ALIEN.—The term ‘illegal 

15 alien’ means an alien who has not been admit16 ted (as that term is defined in section 101 of 

17 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

18 1101)). 

19 ‘‘(D) IMMIGRANT.—The term ‘immigrant’ 

20 has the meaning given that term in section 101 

21 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

22 U.S.C. 1101). 

23 ‘‘(2) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para24 graph (3) and notwithstanding any other provision 

25 of law, including section 103 of the Immigration and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3808 IS

1 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1103), Federal air mar2 shals may not be deployed to the southern or north3 ern border of the United States for border security 

4 or immigration purposes, including to aid the De5 partment of Homeland Security or any other Fed6 eral agency with the processing of illegal aliens, or 

7 any other immigrants. 

8 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTIONS.— 

9 ‘‘(A) EXCEPTION IN CASE OF BORDER CRI10 SIS.—Paragraph (2) shall not apply if the Sec11 retary of Homeland Security— 

12 ‘‘(i) determines that a border crisis 

13 exists; and 

14 ‘‘(ii) certifies to the appropriate con15 gressional committees in writing that a 

16 border crisis exists. 

17 ‘‘(B) NONDELEGATION.—The Secretary 

18 may not delegate the authority to make a deter19 mination or certification described in subpara20 graph (A).’’. 

21 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 44917(b) of 

22 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 

23 ‘‘Under Secretary’’ each place it appears and inserting 

24 ‘‘Administrator’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OmniAmerican Bancorp, 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 annual 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 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)
    
    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;
 c)
    
    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;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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.
 March 24, 2010
    
    /s/ Deborah B. WilkinsonDate
    
    Deborah B. WilkinsonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
null

484.8594
# EUR-Lex - 32005R1798 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005R1798

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1798/2005 of 28 October 2005 specifying the extent to which applications lodged in October 2005 for import certificates in respect of young male bovine animals for fattening as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 may be accepted **

*
Official Journal L 288 , 29/10/2005 P. 0046 - 0046 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1798/2005

of 28 October 2005

specifying the extent to which applications lodged in October 2005 for import certificates in respect of young male bovine animals for fattening as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal [1],

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 of 29 June 2005 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for young male bovine animals for fattening ( 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006) [2], and in particular Articles 1(4) and 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 lays down the number of young male bovine animals which may be imported on special terms during the period from 1 October to 31 December 2005. The quantities covered by import licence applications submitted are such that applications may by accepted in full.

(2) The quantities in respect of which licences may be applied for from 1 January 2006 should be fixed within the scope of the total quantity of 169000 animals, conforming to Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. All applications for import certificates made in the month of October 2005 pursuant to Article 3(3), second subparagraph, third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 are hereby met in full.

2. The number of animals referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 is 126430.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

[1] OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

[2] OJ L 168, 30.6.2005, p. 16.

--------------------------------------------------
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) In connection with the quarterly report of Seminis, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Gaspar Alvarez Martinez, Vice President, Finance and Worldwide
Corporate Comptroller of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b), as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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. Date: February 14, 2005 /s/ Gaspar Alvarez MartinezGaspar Alvarez MartinezVP Finance and WW Corporate Comptroller 40
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 quarterly report of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cindy McPike, Senior Vice President and 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:



(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.



Dated: May 9, 2005



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ CINDY MCPIKE                                 
|Cindy McPike                                     
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7106
JASON SOTIRIS KARAVIAS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; ROBIN HULBERT, Ph.D.; WAYNE KINCAID; DAVE L. GRA HAM; RONDA YATES; PSYCHOLOGIST WILLIAMS; SAMUEL L. BATTS; JAMES E. SMITH; JAMES E. BRIGGS; E. C. MORRIS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Ri chmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-10) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Sotiris Karavias, II, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; John Britton Russell, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Karavias v. Angelone , No. CA-95-10 (E.D. Va. July 17, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-26-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 31, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 22, to be 
effective December 1, 1997.
    Natual states that the filing is submitted pursuant to Section 21 
of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth 
Revised Volume No. 1 (Section 21), as the ninth semiannual limited rate 
filing under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act and the Rules and 
Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
promulgated thereunder. The rate adjustments filed for are designed to 
recover Account No. 858 stranded costs incurred by Natural under 
contracts for transportation capacity on other pipelines. Costs for any 
Account No. 858 contracts specifically excluded under Section 21 are 
not reflected in this filing.
    Natural requested specific waivers of Section 21 and the 
Commission's Regulations, including the requirements of Section 154.63, 
to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheet to become effective 
December 1, 1997.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
Natural's customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. 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. 97-29555 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
BeneficialName of Subsidiary and Name Under Which It Does Business
    
    Place of Incorporation
    
    OwnershipShanda Games International (Pte) Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    
    100
    %Eyedentity Games, Inc.
    
    Republic of Korea
    
    
    100
    %Mochi Games, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Actoz Soft Co., Ltd.
    
    Republic of Korea
    
    
    51.6
    %(1)Shengqu Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
    
    
    100
    %Shengji Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
    
    
    100
    %Lansha Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
    
    
    100
    %Kuyin Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
    
    
    100
    %
 (1)
    
    As of December 31, 2010 Name of Consolidated Affiliate and Name Under Which It Does Business
    
    Place of IncorporationShanghai Shulong Technology Development Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCShanghai Shulong Computer Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCNanjing Shulong Computer Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCChengdu Youji Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCTianjin Youji Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCChengdu Aurora Technology Development Co., Ltd.
    
    PRCChengdu Simo Technology Co., Ltd
    
    PRCShanghai Hongli Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-930.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CROATIA 

Signed at Vienna September 30, 2008 

with 

Addendum 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CROATIA 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Vienna September 30, 2008; 

 Entered into force September 30, 2008. 

 With addendum. 

 








Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Croatian text of this Arrangement. If the Croatian text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
#### Alex REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. OSCEOLA ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation et al., Appellees.

No. 70-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            4124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2382
<ALLOWANCES>                                       149
<INVENTORY>                                       3395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10835
<PP&E>                                            3243
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2825
<BONDS>                                            399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           695
<OTHER-SE>                                        9181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15494
<SALES>                                           3720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3720
<CGS>                                             1731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    226
<INCOME-TAX>                                        98
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Freddie Lee JAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 19, 1969.

*469Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Appellant Freddie Lee James appeals to this Court from an order denying a “Motion For An Order Granting Jail Time Credit”, entered on April 3, 1969, after he had pleaded guilty, was adjudged guilty, and was sentenced to the State Prison on July 10, 1968, upon an information filed against him in the Polk County Criminal Court of Record charging him with uttering and passing a forged instrument.

James asserted in his motion that he “was unable to post bail and was force [sic] to remain incarcereted [sic] until receiving his sentence” and that “denial of credit for time served, violates the ‘due process and equal protection’ clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”.

The trial Judge denied the motion because jurisdiction of the trial Court had ceased after the judgment and sentence.

F.S. § 924.06 F.S.A. permits an appeal by the defendant only from (1) a final judgment of conviction without probation; (2) an order granting probation; (3) an order revoking probation, or (4) an excessive or illegal sentence. An appeal is also permitted under Rule 1.850 CrPR from an order entered upon a motion to vacate a void sentence.

The instant appeal would therefore be impermissible under either F.S. § 924.06 F.S.A. or CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. aforesaid, so the appeal must be dismissed ex mero motu.

We might mention however, that the order sought to be appealed from is without error because under F.S. § 921.25 F.S.A. the sentence may be reduced by the Court imposing it, but only within 60 days after imposition. This, of course, would be within the sound discretion of the trial Judge. After 60 days, the trial Court is without further authority if the original sentence was legal, which in the instant case was unchallenged.

Appeal dismissed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### Max “Mike” DIAMOND, Appellant, v. Richard E. GERSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 68-1043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 7, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.