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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 71

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Miami, Florida,

and not a competing foreign city, should serve as the

permanent location for the Secretariat of the Free Trade

Area of the Americas (FTAA) beginning in 2005.

Whereas deliberations on establishing a ‘‘Free Trade Area of

the Americas’’ (FTAA) will help facilitate greater cooperation and understanding on trade barrier reduction

throughout the Americas;

Whereas the trade ministers of 34 countries of the Western

Hemisphere agreed in 1998 to create a permanent Secretariat in order to support negotiations on establishing the

FTAA;

Whereas the FTAA Secretariat will employ persons to provide logistical, administrative, archival, translation, publication, and distribution support for the negotiations;

Whereas the FTAA Secretariat will be funded by a combination of local resources and institutional resources from a
2

SCON 71 RFH

tripartite committee consisting of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organization of American

States (OAS), and the United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC);

Whereas the temporary site of the FTAA Secretariat will be

located in Miami, Florida, from 1999 until February 28,

2001, at which point the Secretariat will rotate to Panama City, Panama, until February 28, 2003, and then

rotate to Mexico City, Mexico, until February 28, 2005;

Whereas by 2005 the FTAA Secretariat will have international institution status providing jobs and tremendous

economic benefits to its host city;

Whereas a permanent site for the FTAA Secretariat after

2005 will likely be selected from among the 3 temporary

host cities;

Whereas the city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the

State of Florida have long served as the gateway for

trade with the Caribbean and Latin America;

Whereas trade between the city of Miami, Florida, and the

countries of Latin America and the Caribbean totaled

$36,793,000,000 in 1998;

Whereas the Miami-Dade area and the State of Florida possess the necessary infrastructure, local resources, and

culture necessary for the FTAA Secretariat’s permanent

site;

Whereas the United States possesses the world’s largest economy and is the leading proponent of trade liberalization

throughout the world; and

Whereas the city of Miami, Florida, the State of Florida, and

the United States are uniquely situated among other
3

SCON 71 RFH

competing locations to host the ‘‘Brussels of the Western

Hemisphere’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should direct the United States representative

4 to the ‘‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’’ (FTAA) nego5 tiations to use all available means in order to secure

6 Miami, Florida, as the permanent site of the FTAA Secre7 tariat after February 28, 2005.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
50514.

#### DAYS v. THE STATE.

Submitted April 9, 1975

Decided April 18, 1975.

*Carroll L. Cowart,*for appellant.

*John W. Underwood, District Attorney, Dupont K.*
      *586
      *Cheney, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*585Deen, Presiding Judge.

1. Under a statute forbidding the sale of liquor without a license "from the authorities now authorized by law to grant licenses,” etc., the state makes out a prima facie case on proving the sale, and proof that it was under a valid license is a matter of defense. *McGehee v. State,*114 Ga. 833 (1) (40 SE 1004). Under Code Ann. § 26-2903 (former Code § 26-5103 making it unlawful for one to carry a pistol "for which he has not obtained a license” etc.,) a prima facie case is made out by proof that the defendant carried the pistol in a public place, and the burden of showing that he had a license is upon him. *Elkins v. State,*17 Ga. App. 479 (87 SE 713). Under Code Ann. § 77-361 it is a felony for a person confined in a state prison to possess weapons including knives capable of endangering the safety or security of the facility "without authorization of the appropriate authorities.” On indictment under this statute, proof that the defendant, a convict, was searched while passing from one building to another, and a knife meeting the above description was found on his person, makes out a prima facie case. If the defendant claims authorized possession, the burden is on him to offer evidence to that effect. It is not on the state to prove a negative by evidence that every prison authority who might have done so in fact did not authorize the act.

2. The general grounds of appeal are without merit. There is positive testimony that the knife was found concealed on the defendant’s person. Days’ only contention on the trial was that it was taken from another prisoner, but he also testified on cross examination that he had previously admitted possession with the explanation that he had found the weapon on a walkway.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.*
#### M.D.L., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-1142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Steven T. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The adjudication of delinquency for unlawful possession of cocaine is affirmed upon a holding that sufficient evidence was *1043presented at trial to sustain the aforesaid adjudication, to wit: (a) a clear plastic bag containing cocaine was found by police beneath the front passenger seat of an otherwise jointly occupied car; (b) the juvenile M.D.L. was observed by police just prior to the subject search, seated in the front passenger seat and bent down toward the floorboard “in a strange manner,” in which position he remained until ordered out of the car by the police; and (c) the juvenile M.D.L. did not at first get out of the car when police ordered him to do so, but did so only after being ordered out a second time. *See Thomas v. State,*512 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), *rev. denied,*520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); *Molinaro v. State,*360 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), *cert. denied,*368 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1979); *Porter v. State,*302 So.2d 481, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Amato v. State,*296 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

AFFIRMED.
Document

Exhibit 10.4

AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT 
AND
 RETIREMENT BENEFIT PACKAGE AGREEMENT
    This Amendment to the Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement and the Amended and Restated Retirement Benefit Package Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of September 24, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Ross Stores, Inc. (“Company” or “Ross”) and Norman A. Ferber, an individual (“Contractor” or “Ferber”), and amends (i) the Amended and Restated Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement entered into by the Company and Contractor effective as of January 6, 2010 and subsequently amended effective January 30, 2012, February 17, 2015, March 1, 2017, February 1, 2018, July 30, 2019 and April 1, 2020 (collectively, the “Consultancy Agreement”) and (ii) the Amended and Restated Retirement Benefit Package Agreement entered into by the Company and Contractor effective as of January 6, 2010 and subsequently amended effective January 30, 2012, February 17, 2015, and January 1, 2016 (collectively, the “Benefit Agreement”) as follows:
1.Section 2.1 of the Consultancy Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “$2,250,000” with the phrase “$1,600,000”, effective June 1, 2021. 


2.Section 2.3 of the Consultancy Agreement is hereby amended by replacing both references therein to the phrase “May 31, 2021” with the phrase “May 31, 2022”.


3.Section 8.1 of the Consultancy Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “May 31, 2021” with the phrase “May 31, 2022”.


4.Section 8.2 of the Consultancy Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following new sentence immediately after the last sentence: 


    “Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, effective June 1, 2021, if this Agreement is terminated prior to the Termination Date for any reason by either party (except as provided in Section 8.4 [Death] below), the Contractor shall continue to be paid the annual fee specified in Section 2.1 through the 90th day following delivery of the notice of such termination to the other party.”
5.Section 2 of the Benefit Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:


“Secretary.  Ross agrees to provide Ferber with a full-time secretary while he is retained by Ross as Consultant through May 31, 2022, including the services of his present secretary for so long as he requests her services and she is able and willing to serve.”  
6.Except as so amended, the Consultancy Agreement and Benefit Agreement remain in full force and effect.














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreements as of the first date first written above.


															
	Company:		Contractor:
					
	ROSS STORES, INC.		NORMAN A. FERBER
					
	By:	/s/George P. Orban		By:	/s/Norman A. Ferber
		George P. Orban
			
		Chairman, Compensation Committee
50128.

#### TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for the possession of illegal drugs. His motion for new trial was overruled and he appealed to this court from his judgment of conviction and sentence. This opinion deals with the only matters argued in the appellant’s brief and all other enumerations of error are considered as abandoned.

1. The appellant complains of the overruling of his motion to suppress certain evidence admitted over his objection at the trial. The transcript discloses the *80defendant admitted his possession of the evidence sought to be suppressed and objected to, this upon his examination under oath upon the trial of the case. Any error, therefore, in overruling the motion to suppress and any objection to the introduction of the evidence was harmless error (see *Watson v. State,*132 Ga. App. 204 (1) (207 SE2d 685)), even though defendant’s explanation of his possession, if believed by the jury, may have authorized his acquittal.

2. After the trial judge, on the sentence hearing, had charged the jury they could punish the defendant by confinement in the penitentiary for a period not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $2,000, or both, the following took place:

> "District Attorney: Did Your Honor charge that it’s reducible if they want to reduce it?

> "The Court: Yes, I suppose it’s an unusual type punishment, but in the event that you would like for the Court to treat it as a misdemeanor, after you write your verdict you could add 'We recommend that he be punished as for a misdemeanor.’ Misdemeanor punishment is confinement not to exceed 12 months and six months in jail and/or $1,000 fine.

> [Thereupon the Jury retired to the Jury Room].

> "Defendant’s Attorney: May I take exception to one part of your charge? I respectfully except where you stated that a misdemeanor would be an unusual type punishment in the case. It seems like this may be expressing an opinion that it would be unusual for them to come back with a recommendation that he be punished as for a misdemeanor.

> "The Court: You misunderstood me. I said that the penalty in this case is an unusual type sentence in that it has an alternate fine.

> "Defendant’s Attorney: I see.”

The defendant’s attorney thus accepted the trial judge’s explanation of what he had said, and failed to pursue the matter further by seeking clarification to the jury. Having thus taken his chances, he cannot now be heard to complain the sentence, though within legal limits, was improperly found by the jury.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.*

*81Argued January 10, 1975

Decided January 30, 1975

Rehearing denied February 21, 1975

*Smith, Geer, Brimberry & Kaplan, Jerry*W. *Brimberry,*for appellant.

*William S. Lee, District Attorney, Daniel MacDougald,III, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
Exhibit 10.4



|     |  |                                                                          |  | 
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|LOGO |  | Four Oaks Place 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77056



| |  |                              |  |                                                     
| |  | ---------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
| |  |                             
| |  | Telephone: Facsimile: Email: |  | (713) 850-9955 (713) 850-9966 gcah@gaffney-cline.com

DKM/bgh/C1490.00/gcah.145.09

June 23, 2009

Mr. Aquiles Rattia

Director de Control de Reservas

Repsol YPF, S.A.

Paseo de la Castellana 278-280

28046 Madrid

Spain

Repsol YPF S.A. Annual Report Form 20-F

Dear Mr. Rattia:

As independent
reserve engineers for Repsol YPF S.A., Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA) hereby confirms that it has granted and not withdrawn its consent to the reference to GCAs review of Repsol YPFs reserves as of September 30, 2007 in
the form and context disclosed by Repsol YPF in Repsol YPFs annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008; and in the Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited
information) in the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein.

GCA audited certain areas in which Repsol YPF has an
interest in Argentina, Venezuela and in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

* * * * *

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                
|GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
|                                 
|/s/ David K. Morgan              
|David K. Morgan                  
|Senior Manager                   



|               |  |               |  |           |  |           |  |           |  |            |  |       
|-------------- |  | ------------- |  | --------- |  | --------- |  | --------- |  | ---------- |  | ------
|UNITED KINGDOM |  | UNITED STATES |  | SINGAPORE |  | AUSTRALIA |  | ARGENTINA |  | KAZAKHSTAN |  | RUSSIA
# Úřední věstník C 70I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 070I |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 634. března 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 070I

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 634. března 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| | Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení PE/242/S – Ředitel (M/Ž) (funkční skupina AD, platová třída 14) – Generální ředitelství pro inovace a technickou podporu – Ředitelství pro publikace, inovace a správu údajů ( Úř. věst. C 065A, 28.2.2020 ) | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení PE/242/S – Ředitel (M/Ž) (funkční skupina AD, platová třída 14) – Generální ředitelství pro inovace a technickou podporu – Ředitelství pro publikace, inovace a správu údajů ( Úř. věst. C 065A, 28.2.2020 )

( Úř. věst. C 065A, 28.2.2020 )

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 4.3.2020 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CI 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2020

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CI 70/1

---

Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení PE/242/S – Ředitel (M/Ž) (funkční skupina AD, platová třída 14) – Generální ředitelství pro inovace a technickou podporu – Ředitelství pro publikace, inovace a správu údajů

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 65 A ze dne 28. února 2020
  )

(2020/C 70 I/01)

Strana 57, bod 2, Místo výkonu práce:

místo:

„Lucemburk.“,

má být:

„Brusel.“

---
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ming Hsieh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 results of operations of the Company.

This
certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: November 5,
2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ MING HSIEH                       
|Ming Hsieh                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1



                     Certification Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic
Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John P. O'Shea, President of the
Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

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

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



/s/ JOHN P. O'SHEA                                               March 30, 2012
---------------------------------
John P. O'Shea
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 11-2214

JOHN WHITNEY,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

LUIS SPENCER,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Lynch, Chief Judge,

Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Joseph F. Krowski for appellant.

Amy L. Karangekis, Assistant Attorney General, with whom

Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief,

for appellee.

August 30, 2012
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 247

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law

enforcement officers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26, 2000

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BURNS, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr.

COVERDELL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. DEWINE,

Mr. GRAMM, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr.

SARBANES, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. WARNER, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HELMS, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

BAYH, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, and Ms. COLLINS)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their

lives while serving as law enforcement officers.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of this country is preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance

and dedication of law enforcement personnel;

Whereas more than 700,000 men and women, at great risk

to their personal safety, presently serve their fellow citizens in their capacity as guardians of peace;
2

•SRES 247 IS

Whereas peace officers are the front line in preserving our

children’s right to receive an education in a crime-free

environment, which is all too often threatened by the insidious fear caused by violence in schools;

Whereas 134 peace officers lost their lives in the performance

of their duty in 1999, and a total of nearly 15,000 men

and women have now made that supreme sacrifice;

Whereas every year 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 officers is injured, and 1 in 4,400 officers is killed in the line

of duty; and

Whereas, on May 15, 2000, more than 15,000 peace officers

are expected to gather in our Nation’s Capital to join

with the families of their recently fallen comrades to

honor them and all others before them: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) recognizes May 15, 2000, as Peace Officers

3 Memorial Day, in honor of Federal, State, and local

4 officers killed or disabled in the line of duty; and

5 (2) calls upon the people of the United States

6 to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and

7 respect.

Æ
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 200

Designating the week of February 14–20 as ‘‘National Biotechnology Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 8, 1999

Mr. GRAMS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week of February 14–20 as ‘‘National

Biotechnology Week’’.

Whereas biotechnology is increasingly important to the research and development of medical, agricultural, industrial, and environmental products;

Whereas biotechnology has been responsible for breakthroughs and achievements which have benefited people

for centuries and, in the 20th century, has contributed to

increasing the lifespan of Americans by 25 years through

the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and other drugs;

Whereas biotechnology is central to research for cures to diseases such as cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, heart and lung disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and innumerable other medical ailments;
2

•SRES 200 IS

Whereas biotechnology contributes to crop yields and farm

productivity and enhances the quality, value, and suitability of crops for food and other uses which are critical

to America’s agricultural system;

Whereas biotechnology promises environmental benefits including protection of water quality, conservation of topsoil, improvement of waste management techniques, and

reduction of chemical pesticide usage;

Whereas biotechnology contributes to the success of the

United States in international commerce and trade;

Whereas biotechnology will be an important catalyst for creating jobs in the 21st century; and

Whereas it is important for all Americans to understand the

role biotechnology contributes to their quality of life:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week of February 14–20 of

3 the year 2000 as ‘‘National Biotechnology Week’’;

4 and

5 (2) requests that the President issue a procla6 mation calling on the people of the United States to

7 observe this week with appropriate programs, cere8 monies, and activities.

Æ
#### Luke A. PETROVICH v. Romney K. PETROVICH.

No. 87-CC-0882.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Petrovich, Romney R.; applying for supervisory & writ of review; Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 28-352; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. C-7405.

Denied.

COLE, J., would grant the writ.