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

Calendar No. 67 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity 

Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2013 

Mr. JOHANNS (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DONNELLY, Mrs. HAGAN, Ms. HEITKAMP, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

SHELBY, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. WARNER, and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read the first time 

MAY 8, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MARGIN REQUIREMENTS. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENTS.— 

5 (1) COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AMEND6 MENT.—Section 4s(e) of the Commodity Exchange 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 888 PCS

1 Act (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)), as added by section 731 of the 

2 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Pro3 tection Act, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(4) APPLICABILITY WITH RESPECT TO

6 COUNTERPARTIES.—The requirements of paragraphs 

7 (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not apply to a swap in 

8 which a counterparty qualifies for an exception 

9 under section 2(h)(7)(A) or satisfies the criteria in 

10 section 2(h)(7)(D).’’. 

11 (2) SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AMEND12 MENT.—Section 15F(e) of the Securities Exchange 

13 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)), as added by sec14 tion 764(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

15 and Consumer Protection Act, is amended by adding 

16 at the end the following new paragraph: 

17 ‘‘(4) APPLICABILITY WITH RESPECT TO

18 COUNTERPARTIES.—The requirements of paragraphs 

19 (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not apply to a secu20 rity-based swap in which a counterparty qualifies for 

21 an exception under section 3C(g)(1) or satisfies the 

22 criteria in section 3C(g)(4).’’. 

23 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The amendments made by 

24 this section to the Commodity Exchange Act shall be im25 plemented— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 888 PCS

1 (1) without regard to— 

2 (A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States 

3 Code; and 

4 (B) the notice and comment provisions of 

5 section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 

6 (2) through the promulgation of an interim 

7 final rule, pursuant to which public comment will be 

8 sought before a final rule is issued; and 

9 (3) such that paragraph (1) shall apply solely 

10 to changes to rules and regulations, or proposed 

11 rules and regulations, that are limited to and di12 rectly a consequence of such amendments. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 67 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

A BILL 

To provide end user exemptions from certain proviSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. sions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the 

MAY 8, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Denali Commission hosts Connectivity Alaska State-wide Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1NircvWQgX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/denali-commission-hosts-connectivity-alaska-state-wide-meeting\/\">Denali Commission hosts Connectivity Alaska State-wide Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/denali-commission-hosts-connectivity-alaska-state-wide-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=1NircvWQgX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Denali Commission hosts Connectivity Alaska State-wide Meeting” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"1NircvWQgX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/3.jpg","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
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



Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 of ROI Land Investments
Ltd. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:
    November 18th, 2013                                                  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|/s/
    Patrick Bragoli                                                        
|Patrick
        Bragoli, Director
        (Principal
        Executive Officer)
EXIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Sector 10, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Pericles DeAvila, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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.








By:  /s/ Pericles DeAvila




Name: Pericles DeAvila


Principal Executive Officer





February 13, 2012
Exhibit 32.1





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





RE:     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





/s/ Sarah Newell


Sarah Newell


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I








August 13, 2020
Supplemental Instructions 

DFAS R&A Pay 

DD Form 2891 

Authorization for Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) and/or 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Costs Deduction 

When to use this form: 

The form is used when the member does not have enough retired pay to cover their 

monthly SBP premiums and wishes to have it deducted from their Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) Compensation. 

To complete the DD 2891, please follow the instructions below. Carefully read and 

complete all information as requested. Be sure to include any required documentation 

with your submission. 

Instructions by Section 

Section Instructions Reminder & Tips

1 Please fill in the deduction amount 

for SBP and/or RSFPP you wish to 

have withheld and date for which 

the deduction should start. 

Then please: 

a. Provide your signature

b. Date the form

Please note that if the 

form is not signed and 

dated it cannot be 

processed and will be 

returned to the member 

2 This section is to be completed by a 

representative from the VA. 

Please return all documents to: 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

US Military Retirement Pay

8899 E 56th Street

Indianapolis, IN 46249-1200

Please direct questions to the address above or call our customer service representatives 

at 1-800-321-1080, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David L. Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered March 15, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that County Court erred when it refused to charge that an adverse inference may be drawn from the People’s failure to produce a videotape made of defendant at the police station after his arrest. Each of the three officers who were present at the time the video*936tape was made testified as to its contents, that defendant simply sat in a chair and refused to participate. Defendánt failed to show how the videotape differed from this testimony or how it could have been used in his defense to show his degree of intoxication, as he now contends. In addition, defendant agreed with the People that the tape was accidentally erased. Under such circumstances, and given the fact that there was no prejudice to defendant as a result of the inadvertent erasure, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in failing to give the requested charge *(see, People v Haupt,*71 NY2d 929, 931; *People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940; *People v Vasquez,*141 AD2d 880, 882, *lv denied*72 NY2d 1050).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Sharon Donaldson, Appellant, v Jamaica Buses, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Sharon Donaldson, Appellant, v Jamaica Buses, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

In two actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), dated June 26, 1989, as denied that branch of her motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a), which was for joint trial of the two actions.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a joint trial of the two actions is granted.

The actions involved herein arose from two separate automobile accidents, each involving a bus owned by the defendant Jamaica Buses, Inc. The plaintiff, who was a passenger on the defendant’s bus on both occasions, alleged that the second accident aggravated injuries caused by the first accident, and supported this allegation with a medical affidavit.

Under these circumstances, and in the absence of demonstrable prejudice to the defendants, the interests of justice and judicial economy would best be served by a joint trial *(see, Obeid v Thermo Natl. Indus.,*146 AD2d 616; *Dolce v Jones,*145 AD2d 594; *Boyman v Bryant,*133 AD2d 802; *Megyesi v Automotive Rentals,*115 AD2d 596; *see also, Heck v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets,*134 AD2d 568). Therefore, we substitute our discretion for that of the trial court by granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a joint trial. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.58

MODIFICATION TO  LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

THIS MODIFICATION TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (the "Modification") is entered into as of June 5, 2002, by and between SILICON VALLEY BANK (the "Bank"),
a California-chartered bank whose address is 3003 Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, California 95054, and SPECTRIAN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation (the "Borrower"), whose address is 350 W. Java Drive,
Sunnyvale, California 94089 in reliance upon the following:

RECITALS

A.    On
or about December 1, 1997, the Borrower and the Bank entered into that certain Loan and Security Agreement, which was subsequently superceded and restated in
full pursuant to an Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated August 9, 1999, and further modified by those certain Loan Modification Agreements dated May 28, 1999,
November 24, 1999, January 31, 2000, May 2, 2000, August 15, 2000, April 16, 2001, May 23, 2001, and September 28, 2001 (the Amended and Restated Loan
and Security Agreement and all Loan Modification Agreements collectively referred to herein as the "Loan Agreement"), pursuant to which the Bank made available to the Borrower a Committed Revolving
Line (the "Revolving Line") in the principal amount of up to Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000). Each capitalized term used in this Modification shall have the meaning accorded to it in the Loan
Agreement unless it is otherwise defined herein.

B.    The
Borrower and the Bank hereby agree to amend the Loan Agreement further as follows, all subject to the terms and conditions of this Modification.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in reliance upon the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:



2.1.2Letters of Credit.



2.1.3Foreign Exchange Sublimit.



---



2.1.4Cash Management Services Sublimit.



7.3Mergers or Acquisitions.



2

---



3

---



[Remainder
of Page Left Intentionally Blank]

4

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto ahs caused its duly authorized representative to execute this Modification as of the date first set forth above.

|BORROWER:                                     |                         | BANK:                                           
|--------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------
|SPECTRIAN CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation |                         | SILICON VALLEY BANK,
a California-chartered bank
|By:                                           | /s/MICHAEL D. ANGEL     |                                                 
|Name:                                         | Michael D. Angel        |                                                 
|Title:                                        | Chief Financial Officer |                                                 

5

---

QuickLinks
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nedio Modesto JIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89CA1529.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

July 26, 1990.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Clement P. Engle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, State Public Defender, James J. Kissell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion by

Judge JONES.

Defendant, Nedio Jirón, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Crim.P. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. Relying on the 1985 amendment to § 18-1-408(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), defendant contends that, since his convictions did not involve multiple victims, concurrent sentences are mandated. We disagree with this contention and affirm the sentence.

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, driving under suspension, and failure to provide proof of insurance, all arising from the same criminal episode. The trial court ruled that proof of each count is not based on *identical*evidence and that, therefore, concurrent sentences are not mandated. Under § 18-1-408(3), we conclude that the trial court was correct.

Section 18-1-408(3) mandates the imposition of concurrent sentences in a multiple count conviction only when the counts are based on the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and the evidence supporting the counts is identical. In 1985, the General Assembly *500amended the statute to provide further that if multiple victims are involved, the court, in .its discretion, may impose consecutive sentences. Colo.Sess.Laws 1985, ch. 147, § 18-1-408(3) at 661. *See Qureshi v. District Court,*727 P.2d 45 (Colo.1986).

Construing this statutory language in its entirety, we conclude that consecutive sentences may be imposed even if there are not multiple victims if, as here, different evidence is required to prove each count.

If the General Assembly had intended to require that punishment for “multiple offenses based on the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode” be by concurrent sentences, then language mandating that type of sentence would be contained in § 18-1-408(2) rather than in § 18-1-408(3). *See People v. Anderson,*187 Colo. 171, 529 P.2d 310 (1974) (construing the predecessor statutes to §§ 18-1-408(2) and (3)). That section, § 18-1-408(2), sets forth requirements , for prosecution of multiple offenses, based on the same act or acts, committed during the same criminal episode, but proof of which is not based on *identical*evidence. Thus, concurrent sentences are not mandated here.

The order is affirmed.

STERNBERG, C.J., and NEY, J., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated June 26, 2006
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion, makes reference to other
auditors, and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to 1) restatement of
the Company's 2004 consolidated financial statements, 2) a change
in the method of accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations,
3) the Company's filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal
Bankruptcy Code, and 4) substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern), relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Tower Automotive, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005,
in the following Registration Statements:


Form                        Registration Statement No.
S-8                         333-119155
S-8                         333-17355
S-8                         333-39523
S-8                         333-59664


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
June 26, 2006
# Eiropas Savienības C 262I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 262I |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 64. gadagājums2021. gada 5. jūlijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 262I

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

64. gadagājums2021. gada 5. jūlijs

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| | DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA |
| 2021/C 262 I/01 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

IV   Paziņojumi

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

2021/C 262 I/01

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

IV Paziņojumi

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

| 5.7.2021 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CI 262/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CI 262/1

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

(2021/C 262 I/01)

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Savienības kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 3.6.2021. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 3.6.2021.–31.12.2021. |
| Dalībvalsts | Francija |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | ANF/8C3411 |
| Suga | Makšķerniekzivju dzimtas (Lophiidae) zivis |
| Zona | 8.c, 9. un 10. zona; Savienības ūdeņi CECAF 34.1.1. zonā |
| Zvejas kuģu tips | --- |
| Atsauces numurs | 08/TQ92 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

3.6.2021.

Ilgums

3.6.2021.–31.12.2021.

Dalībvalsts

Francija

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

ANF/8C3411

Suga

Makšķerniekzivju dzimtas (Lophiidae) zivis

Zona

8.c, 9. un 10. zona; Savienības ūdeņi CECAF 34.1.1. zonā

Zvejas kuģu tips

---

Atsauces numurs

08/TQ92

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---