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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 6, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in honoring the crew

and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of war were committed

against the United States, killing and injuring thousands

of innocent people;

Whereas these attacks were directed at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which are symbols of the Nation’s economic

and military strength;
2

HCON 232 RFS

Whereas United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked by terrorists

as part of these attacks;

Whereas while Flight 93 was still in the air, passengers and

crew, through cellular phone conversations with loved

ones on the ground, learned that other hijacked airplanes

had been used in these attacks;

Whereas during these phone conversations several of the passengers indicated that there was an agreement among the

passengers and crew to try to overpower the hijackers

who had taken over the aircraft;

Whereas it is believed that it was this effort to overpower the

hijackers that caused Flight 93 to crash in southwestern

Pennsylvania, short of what is believed to have been its

intended target: Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas the crash resulted in the death of everyone on board

the aircraft: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) on September 11, 2001, the passengers and

4 crew of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 possibly

5 averted the use of that aircraft in a further terrorist

6 attack on the United States by attempting to over7 power the hijackers;

8 (2) the United States owes its deepest gratitude

9 to the passengers and crew of Flight 93, and ex10 tends its condolences to the families and friends of

11 Captain Jason Dahl, First Officer Leroy Homer,

12 flight attendants Lorraine G. Bay, Sandra W. Brad-
3

HCON 232 RFS

1 shaw, Wanda A. Green, Ceecee Lyles, Deborah A.

2 Welsh, and passengers Christian Adams, Todd

3 Beamer, Alan Beaven, Mark Bingham, Thomas Bur4 nett, William Cashman, Georgine Corrigan, Joseph

5 Deluca, Patrick Driscoll, Edward Felt, Jane C.

6 Folger, Colleen Fraser, Andrew Garcia, Jeremy

7 Glick, Kristin Gould, Lauren Grandcolas, Donald

8 Greene, Linda Gronlund, Richard Guadagno,

9 Toshiya Kuge, Hilda Marcin, Waleska Martinez, Ni10 cole Miller, Louis J. Nacke, Donald Peterson, Mark

11 Rothenberg, John Talignani, Honor Elizabeth

12 Wainio, and 9 passengers whose families wish them

13 to remain anonymous; and

14 (3) a memorial plaque to these victims should

15 be placed on the grounds of the Capitol, and a copy

16 of the wording of the plaque, together with a copy

17 of this resolution from the Congressional Record,

18 should be sent to a designated survivor of each vic19 tim.

Passed the House of Representatives December 5,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
403 Employee Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.21 
  
 FY2006 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN 
  
 Revised Date: 06/01/2005 
  
 Eligibility: 
  
 Worldwide Executives who
are actively employed at the end of both the Company’s fiscal year (May 31st) and at time of payout (on or before July 31st) are eligible to participate in the Executive Bonus Plan. 
  
 Executives who have not completed a full quarter of continuous employment are not eligible. Executives who receive part of their
compensation in the form of commissions and/or other incentive/variable based bonus plans are not eligible. 
  
 Bonus Calculation: 
  
 Upon Board approval
of the Company’s 2006 financial plan (exclusive of acquisitions and/or mergers – unless approved by the Compensation Committee), the annual bonus shall be paid based upon the quarterly attainment of three performance metrics: 

 

	 	•	 	Revenue 

  

	 	•	 	Pro forma operating margin 

  

	 	•	 	Individual MBO goals 

  
 Each metric is weighted equally at 33.333% of the annual bonus or 8.333% per quarter. 
  
 Within each given quarter, both quarterly revenue and pro forma operating margin thresholds must be attained in order to earn bonus funding. 
  
 In order to earn acceleration funding, two thresholds must be attained: 
  

	 	•	 	Within each given quarter, both quarterly revenue and pro forma operating margin thresholds must be attained 


	 	•	 	Each quarter of the fiscal year must attain the minimum 90% threshold 

  
 In order to earn MBO funding, each quarter of the fiscal year must attain the minimum 90% threshold. 
  
 In addition to the eligibility requirements stated above, funding is limited to only those Executives who are actively employed within each
specific quarter of attainment. 







 Accelerators notwithstanding, the total annual bonus (upon attainment of individual MBO goals and both quarterly revenue
and quarterly pro forma operating margin thresholds) is 50% of earned annual base compensation for eligible Senior Vice President level Executives: 
  

			
	 Quarterly Revenue & Pro Forma Operating Margin Thresholds

	 	Quarterly Bonus Funding


	 Less than 90% attainment
	 	0%
	 Between 90% and 100% attainment
	 	2.083% to 4.167%
	 ACCELERATOR: Above 100% to 130% attainment
	 	4.167% to 8.333%

  
 Accelerators notwithstanding, the
total annual bonus (upon attainment of individual MBO goals and both quarterly revenue and quarterly pro forma operating margin thresholds) is 40% of earned annual base compensation for eligible Vice President level Executives: 
  

			
	 Quarterly Revenue & Pro Forma Operating Margin Thresholds

	  	Quarterly Bonus Funding


	 Less than 90% attainment
	  	0%
	 Between 90% and 100% attainment
	  	1.667% to 3.333%
	 ACCELERATOR: Above 100% to 130% attainment
	  	3.333% to 6.667%
	 	  	 

  
 Payout: 
  
 The bonus will be paid out within two months from the end of the Company’s fiscal year
(May 31st). As stated above, Executives who are actively employed within each specific quarter of attainment and who
are actively employed at the end of both the fiscal year and at the time of payout are eligible for payout.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00015

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- 005622

- 1

Before Sudderth, CJ.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### L AVELL 

### F AIRBANKS 

### , Appellant

V



### . H ILLCREST 

### A PARTMENTS 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant ’ s brief was due May 5, 2022 , but he did not file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6 (a)

. On June 6, 2022, we notified A ppellant that his brief had not be en filed , and w e warned that we could dis miss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, A ppellant filed a brief along with a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimeliness

. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1),
42

. 3(b). M ore than ten days have passed, but w e have not received a response

. Because A ppellant has failed to file a brief as t he Rules of Appellate P r ocedure require , we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), ( c), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam
Delivered : July 21, 2022
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 191

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the importance of parents

and children eating dinner together as a family.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 2001

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the importance of parents and children eating dinner together

as a family.

Whereas the use of illegal drugs and the abuse of alcohol and

nicotine constitute the greatest threats to the well-being

of America’s children;

Whereas surveys conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse have consistently found that

children and teenagers who routinely eat dinner with

their parents are far less likely to use illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes;

Whereas teenagers who virtually never eat dinner with their

families are 72 percent more likely than the average teenager to use illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes;
2

•HCON 191 IH

Whereas the correlation between family dinners and reduced

risk for teen substance abuse is well documented;

Whereas parental influence is known to be one of the most

crucial factors in determining the likelihood of substance

abuse by teenagers; and

Whereas family dinners have long constituted a substantial

pillar of family life in America;

Whereas a National Family Day, A Day to Eat Dinner With

Your Children, on Monday, Septemeber 24, 2001, would

encourage families to eat together: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) eating dinner together as a family is an im4 portant step toward preventing drug, alcohol, and

5 cigarette use by children; and

6 (2) a National Family Day, A Day to Eat Din7 ner With Your Children, should be established to en8 courage parents and children to eat dinner together

9 regularly as a family.

Æ
#### Edward T. URSIN, et al. v. NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD and the City of New Orleans.

No. 87-CC-0907.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re New Orleans Aviation Bd.; New Orleans, City of; applying for writ of cer-*1143tiorari and/or review; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “N”, No. 243595; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-C-620.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 947.

Granted to consider issue relative to procedure used to enroll additional plaintiffs.
#### Samuel HARRIS v. Stafford PINESET, et al.

No. 87-C-0314.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Harris, Samuel; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18185-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 313079.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 499.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 120 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 120

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that Social Security reform 
  measures should not force State and local government employees into 
                       Social Security coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2001

Mr. Green of Wisconsin (for himself, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Schaffer, and Mr. 
   Hefley) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that Social Security reform 
  measures should not force State and local government employees into 
                       Social Security coverage.

Whereas an estimated 5 million State and local government employees are 
        currently covered under public pensions outside the Social Security 
        program; and
Whereas these State and local government employees deserve to be secure in the 
        knowledge that their coverage will not be affected against their will by 
        social security reform measures: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That no social security reform plan favorably considered by the 
Congress should cause State and local government employees covered 
under public pensions to be forced into coverage under the old-age, 
survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the 
Social Security Act.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00020-CR

JUAN JESUS ALVAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1560709D)

October 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgments on Counts Two and Three. The cumulationorder portion of each judgment are modified to read:

The sentences imposed under Counts Two and Three shall 

commence when the sentence imposed in cause number 1244142D—

out of the 372nd District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, on January 6, 

2012, for a term of twenty-five years for the offense of aggravated sexual 

assault of a child under fourteen years of age—ceases to operate.

The trial court’s written judgment on Count Two is modified to reflect “Fines: $0.00.”
It is ordered that the judgments of the trial court are affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Patrick Bratton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC;

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 quarterly 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 we 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; and

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; and

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 function):

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: May 5, 2010



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick Bratton    
|    |  | Patrick Bratton        
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

| 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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  February 12, 2010 |                       |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                    |                       |   |
|                    | /s/  Thomas A. Borner |   |
|                    | Thomas A. Borner           |   |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer    |   |
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 148

Affirming authority of the Great Lakes Basin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26 (legislative day, MAY 25), 2001

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. CAMP, Mr. PENCE, Mr. TIBERI,

and Mr. UPTON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Affirming authority of the Great Lakes Basin.

Whereas the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are

precious public natural resources, shared and held in

trust by the Great Lakes States of Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

Wisconsin and the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and

Quebec;

Whereas authority over the Great Lakes is vested in the Governors of the Great Lakes States by the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986;

Whereas section 1109(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–20(b)(2)) encourages the Great Lakes States, in consultation with the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and

implement a mechanism that provides a common con-
2

•HCON 148 IH

servation standard embodying the principles of water conservation and resource improvement for making decisions

concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the

Great Lakes Basin;

Whereas section 1109(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–20(d)) requires the

approval of the Great Lakes States prior to the diversion

or export of Great Lakes water;

Whereas the Great Lakes Charter of 1985 is a voluntary

international agreement that provides the procedural

framework for prior notice and consultation by the Great

Lakes States and the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and

Quebec concerning the withdrawal of water from the

Great Lakes Basin;

Whereas the Council of Great Lakes Governors has drafted

amendments to the Great Lakes Charter of 1985, known

as ‘‘Annex 2001’’;

Whereas a primary purpose of Annex 2001 is to strengthen

the authority of Great Lakes Governors and Premiers to

make decisions concerning proposals to divert or export

Great Lakes water by establishing a common conservation standard by which such decisions will be made; and

Whereas the final commitments proposed in Annex 2001 to

affirm in-basin authority by way of enacting a basinStates compact and a cross-border accord with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be presented to the

United States Congress for final approval: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes and affirms the ef3 forts of the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers in devel-
3

•HCON 148 IH

1 oping a common standard for decisions relating to with2 drawal of water from the Great Lakes that lead to im3 provement of this binational resource and that the man4 agement authority over the waters of the Great Lakes

5 should remain vested with the Governors and Premiers of

6 the 8 Great Lakes States and 2 Great Lakes Provinces

7 that share stewardship over this vast and valuable natural

8 resource.

Æ
Title: Enforceable Consent Agreement for the Laboratory-Scale Incineration Testing of Fluoropolymers – Interim Report No. 8

OPPT Docket ID No: OPPT-2003-0071

Date of Interim Report: June 22, 2009

This Report covers the period from January 1, 2009 to June 22,

2009.

1) List or description of significant ECA Test Program milestones during this period:

Test substance composites 1, 2, and 4 for this project have been prepared and sent to the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI). UDRI received these composites on February 23, 2009. (Receipt of test substance composite 3 at UDRI was previously reported in Interim Report No. 5.)

Thermogravimetric analysis of the test substance composites was performed at the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) on April 23-24, 2009.

Carbon and hydrogen analysis of the test substance composites was performed at Akron Rubber Development Laboratory (Gilchrist Road location) on May 28, 2009.

Total fluorine analysis of the test substance composites was performed at StereoChemical, Inc. during May 29 - June 16, 2009.

See attached quarterly QA/QC status reports.

2) Description of Difficulties: (If none indicate N/A)

N/A

3) Actions taken in response to difficulties: If none indicate N/A)

N/A

4) Other information relevant to the progress of the testing program: (If none indicate N/A)

N/A