alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 36887.

Department Two.

April 30, 1964.]

#### James E. Donaldson, *Appellant,*v. The State Personnel Board *et al., Respondents.****

*Corbett, Siderius & Lonergan*and *Henry & Epstein,*for appellant.

*The Attorney General, R. Ted Bottiger, Jerry Weaver,*and *Herbert Gelman, Assistants,*for respondents.

*

Reported in 391 P. (2d) 970.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, an employee in the office of the state auditor, commenced this action against the State Personnel Board to enjoin it from implementing a proposed amendment to the Merit System Rules, designated as Article XX, “Agreements Between Agencies and Employee Organizations.”

RCW 41.06.1501 provides, among other things, that the Board adopt rules regarding procedures for the establishment of

“. . . agreements between agencies and employee organizations providing for grievance procedures and collective negotiations on personnel matters, including wages, hours and working conditions, which may be peculiar to an agency; ...”

Plaintiff urges that the Board is attempting to act beyond its statutory power and that Article XX of the Merit System Rules is unconstitutional and void.

*369The trial court dismissed the action and stated in its memorandum opinion:

“There is no controversy before this court which is ripe for judicial consideration. The plaintiff has not been harmed by the proposed rule and there is no present threat of harm to plaintiff. The courts do not exist to issue advisory opinions nor to decide controversies which do not exist.”

We agree with the trial court. Plaintiff has failed to establish facts sufficient to support a conclusion that any right or privilege of his has been interfered with or impaired, or is immediately threatened to be interfered with or impaired as required by RCW 34.04.070. The touchstone of justiciability is injury to a legally protected right.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

Laws of 1961, chapter 1, § 15, adopted by the voters as Initiative Measure No. 207 and designated the State Civil Service Law.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 268 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 268

 Expressing the sense of Congress that women from all ethnic groups in 
     Afghanistan should participate in the economic and political 
                     reconstruction of Afghanistan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2001

 Mrs. Morella (for herself and Mrs. Maloney of New York) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress that women from all ethnic groups in 
     Afghanistan should participate in the economic and political 
                     reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Whereas until 1996 women in Afghanistan enjoyed the right to be educated, work, 
        vote, and hold elective office;
Whereas women served on the committee that drafted the Constitution of 
        Afghanistan in 1964;
Whereas during the 1970s women were appointed to the Afghan ministries of 
        education, health, and law;
Whereas in 1977 women comprised more than 15 percent of the Loya Jirga, the 
        Afghan national legislative assembly;
Whereas during the war with the Soviet Union as many as 70 percent of the 
        teachers, nurses, doctors, and small business owners in Afghanistan were 
        women;
Whereas in 1996 the Taliban stripped the women of Afghanistan of their most 
        basic human and political rights;
Whereas under Taliban rule women have become one of the most vulnerable groups 
        in Afghanistan, accounting for 75 percent or more of all Afghan 
        refugees;
Whereas a study conducted by Physicians for Human Rights and released in May 
        2001 indicates that more than 90 percent of Afghan men and women believe 
        that women should have the right to receive an education, work, freely 
        express themselves, enjoy legal protections, and participate in the 
        government; and
Whereas restoring the human and political rights that were once enjoyed by 
        Afghan women is essential to the long-term stability of a reconstructed 
        Afghanistan: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) a portion of the humanitarian assistance provided to 
        Afghanistan should be targeted to Afghan women and their 
        organizations;
            (2) Afghan women from all ethnic groups in Afghanistan 
        should be permitted to participate in the economic and 
        political reconstruction of Afghanistan; and
            (3) any constitution or legal structure of a reconstructed 
        Afghanistan should guarantee the human and political rights of 
        Afghan women.
                                 <all>
```
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 181

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the situation in East Timor.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 10, 1999

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr.

WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the situation

in East Timor.

Whereas on May 5, 1999, the Governments of Indonesia and

Portugal signed an agreement that provided for an August 8, 1999, ballot organized by the United Nations on

the political status of East Timor;

Whereas under the May 5th agreement the Government of

Indonesia freely agreed to be responsible for establishing

a secure environment in East Timor that would be free

of intimidation and violence;

Whereas on August 30, 1999, 78 percent of the people in

East Timor voted for independence; and

Whereas, after the vote for independence, the militias in East

Timor intensified their reign of terror against the people
2

•SRES 181 IS

of East Timor unrestrained by the Government of Indonesia: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE SITU3 ATION IN EAST TIMOR.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Senate hereby—

5 (1) congratulates the people of East Timor for

6 their heroic vote on August 30, 1999;

7 (2) recognizes that the people of East Timor

8 voted for independence;

9 (3) condemns the violence of the militias in

10 East Timor and the inaction by the Government of

11 Indonesia to end the violence; and

12 (4) calls on the Government of Indonesia to end

13 all violence in accordance with the May 5, 1999

14 agreement.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

16 Senate that—

17 (1) the President of the United States should

18 instruct the United States Permanent Representa19 tive to the United Nations to immediately seek the

20 United Nations Security Council authorization for

21 the deployment of an international force to address

22 the security situation in East Timor; and

23 (2) the United States should assist in this ef24 fort in an appropriate manner.
3

•SRES 181 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.

2 The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy

3 of this resolution to the President.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Onex Falcon Direct Lending BDC Fund (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

1. the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 16, 2023



|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|    |                        
|By: | Sandeep Alva           
|    | Sandeep Alva           
|    | Chief Executive Officer



---
Exhibit 10.3

                             PHASE III MEDICAL, INC.
                             330 South Service Road
                                    Suite 120
                            Melville, New York 11747
                                  631.574.4955

August 12, 2005

Wayne A. Marasco, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Cancer Immunology & AIDS
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute - Harvard Medical School
44 Binney Street
Boston, MA 02115

Dear Dr. Marasco:

            This letter agreement shall serve as an amendment (the "Amendment")
to your letter agreement (the "Letter Agreement") with Phase III Medical, Inc.
(the "Company") dated August 12, 2004 to serve as the Company's Senior
Scientific Advisor. The terms of this Amendment were unanimously approved by the
Board of Directors of the Company on May 4, 2005, subject to the approval of the
Company's shareholders, which was obtained on July 20, 2005.

            The Letter Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   The Term is hereby extended from August 11, 2007 to August 11, 2008.
     2.   The annual salary to which you are entitled under the Letter Agreement
          during the Term shall be equal to $110,000, $125,000 and $150,000,
          respectively, for each of the years ended August 11, 2006, August 11,
          2007 and August 11, 2008.
     3.   Under the Letter Agreement, you shall be entitled to an annual minimum
          bonus of $12,000 during the Term, payable in January of each year
          during the Term, commencing in January 2006.
     4.   Eliminated in its entirety is your right to receive 5% of all
          collected revenues derived from the Company's royalty or other revenue
          sharing agreements (which right was subject to the limitation that the
          amount of such additional cash compensation and your annual salary do
          not exceed, in the aggregate, $200,000 per year).
     5.   Your right to begin receiving all accrued but unpaid cash compensation
          under the Letter Agreement shall commence upon the Company's
          consummation of any financing, whether equity or otherwise, pursuant
          to which the Company raises a minimum of $1,500,000 after the
          Commencement Date.

            Except as provided herein, the Letter Agreement shall remain
unchanged. Unless otherwise defined herein, initially capitalized terms used
herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Letter Agreement. For our
records, I would appreciate your countersigning the attached copy of this
Amendment and returning the same to me at your earliest convenience.

                                         Sincerely,
                                         /s/ Mark Weinreb
                                         Mark Weinreb, President & CEO


Accepted and agreed to:
/s/ Wayne A. Marasco
Wayne A. Marasco, M.D., Ph.D.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41350

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MONTE LEE ARMSTRONG, also known as Monte Armstrong,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-648-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Monte Lee Armstrong appeals his jury trial conviction on one count of

possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. He

claims that he was denied due process of law because the Government bolstered

its case during its opening statement. Armstrong contends that his conviction

must be reversed because the cumulative effect of the Government’s errors so

tainted the jury that he could not receive a fair trial.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-41350 Document: 00511609852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
No. 10-41350

As Armstrong concedes, he failed to object during the Government’s

opening statement. Thus, review is for plain error. See United States v. Rice, 

607 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear

or obvious and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Ellis,

564 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2009). When those elements are shown, this court

has the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation

and citation omitted). 

“The government’s attempt to bolster a witness by vouching for his

credibility constitutes error when the prosecutor’s statements ‘might reasonably

have led the jury to believe that the prosecutor possessed extrinsic evidence, not

presented to the jury, that convinced the prosecutor of the defendant’s guilt.’” 

United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 

“[F]or bolstering to constitute plain error, the prosecutor must intertwine ‘his

personal and official credibility with the credibility of the witnesses.’” United

States v. Davis, 831 F.2d 63, 67 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

The purpose of an opening statement is to present what the evidence

would show. United States v. Garza-Vasquez, 1994 WL 35615, *5 (5th Cir. Jan.

27, 1994) (unpublished). Here, the Government’s opening statement merely

provided an overview of the case and the evidence it expected to present. 

Armstrong has not demonstrated plain error.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-41350 Document: 00511609852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
**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 on Form 10-Q for the three months period
      ended March 31, 2007 of the Claymore MACROshares Oil Down Tradeable Trust (the
      " **Registrant** "),
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      " **Quarterly**  **Report** "),
      I,
      Steven M. Hill, principal financial officer of MACRO Securities Depositor,
      LLC,
      which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the " **Depositor** "),
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents,
                in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                of the
                Registrant.











Date:
      May
      15, 2007





/s/
      Steven M. Hill


Steven
      M.
      Hill


On
      behalf
      of the Registrant


and
      as
      Chief Financial Officer
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 168

Expressing the sense of Congress in support of victims of torture.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 2001

Ms. ROS-LEHTNEN (for herself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr.

ENGEL, Mr. LEACH, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. CROWLEY, and Ms. LEE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress in support of victims of

torture.

Whereas the people of the United States abhor the use of torture by any government or person;

Whereas the existence of torture creates a climate of fear and

international insecurity that affects all people;

Whereas torture results in mental and physical damage to an

individual that destroys the individual’s personality and

terrorizes society and the effects of torture can last a lifetime for the individual and can also affect future generations;
2

•HCON 168 IH

Whereas repressive governments often use torture as a weapon against democracy by eliminating the leadership of

their opposition and frightening the general public;

Whereas more than 500,000 survivors of torture live in the

United States;

Whereas torture has devastating effects on the victim which

often require extensive medical and psychological treatment;

Whereas both the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public

Law 105–320) and the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–87) authorize funding for rehabilitation services for victims of torture so

that these individuals may become productive and contributing members of their communities;

Whereas the United States played a leading role in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and

Whereas June 26th of each year is the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, on the occasion of the United Nations

3 International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Con4 gress pays tribute to all victims of torture in the United

5 States and around the world who are struggling to over-
3

•HCON 168 IH

1 come the physical scars and psychological effects of tor2 ture.

Æ
Steven L. Beshear 

Governor Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1st Floor 

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403 

Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Dear Ms. Fleming, 

air.ky.gov 

December 19, 2012 

The Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KyDAQ) requests that the U.S. EPA grant conditional 

approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) related to 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2008 lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). KyDAQ has revised the Kentucky PSD regulations to meet 

the current requirements for the PM25 standards. Specifically, the following administrative regulations in 

the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) have been amended: 

401 KAR 51:001. Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51. 

401 KAR 51:017. Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. 

401 KAR 51:052. Review of new sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas. 

KyDAQ submitted the aforementioned proposed regulation amendments to EPA for review and 

comment on June 19, 2012, and requested parallel processing of these amendments on June 27, 2012. 

These amendments became effective in Kentucky on December 7, 2012. 

Kentucky is providing a SIP revision to address the current PSD requirements for the PM2.5 

standards in accordance with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, and in accordance with the following 

schedule: 

End of public comment period, in which a public hearing was July 31 , 2012 conducted 

Submitted Statements of Consideration of comments received September 12, 2012 during public comment period 

First legislative subcommittee (Administrative Regulation October 9, 2012 Review Subcommittee) reviewed regulation 

KerituckyUnbridledSpirit.com 

n~,DLI~D ~ tu~ SPIRITY 

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D 
Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming 

December 19,2012 

Page 2 

Second legislative subcommittee (Natural Resources and 

Environment Subcommittee) did not meet 

·~ Effective. date ofr,egulat~on 

~"'~" ·- ....... _,.,,.-.. 

{ S~En:iit'~mendment~ to E~A as an amendment to Kentucky's SIP · t . it • · , 1 u \ r, 

N/A 

30 days after the regulation referral 

by 1st subcommittee -:- December 7, 

2012 

Mid January 2013 

1\1 :. ' ·, "''t ;;.1 It:-ybth:li.ave. :.t:lll¥ coillments or questions regarding this request, please contact Ms. Andrea Smith at 

(502) 5~£3~ bfi'*Andrea.Smith@ky.gov . · <-t.~ 1 !· ~* I ~ ........... 

Cc: Lynorae Benjamin / 

Scott Davis 

JSL/ll 

,\ 

I \ 

\ 

Jfhn S. Lyons 

Director 

\J
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2010 - 0564 **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 13 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the fol lowing changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:
**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**