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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 76

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 22, 2001

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the East Front of the Capitol Grounds

for performances sponsored by the John F. Kennedy

Center for the Performing Arts.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 76 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING USE OF EAST FRONT OF CAP2 ITOL GROUNDS FOR PERFORMANCES SPON3 SORED BY KENNEDY CENTER.

4 In carrying out its duties under section 4 of the John

5 F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76j), the John F. Ken6 nedy Center for the Performing Arts, in cooperation with

7 the National Park Service (in this resolution jointly re8 ferred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’), may sponsor public perform9 ances on the East Front of the Capitol Grounds at such

10 dates and times as the Speaker of the House of Represent11 atives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the

12 Senate may approve jointly.

13 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any performance authorized

15 under section 1 shall be free of admission charge to the

16 public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of

17 Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Archi18 tect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

19 (b) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

20 assume full responsibility for all liabilities incident to all

21 activities associated with the performance.

22 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

23 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—In consultation

24 with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

25 Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the

26 Architect of the Capitol shall provide upon the Capitol
3

HCON 76 RDS

1 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and

2 other related structures and equipment as may be required

3 for a performance authorized under section 1.

4 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

5 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board may make such

6 additional arrangements as may be required to carry out

7 the performance.

8 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

9 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce10 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

11 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con12 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations

13 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli14 cable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to a perform15 ance authorized by section 1.

16 SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

17 A performance may not be conducted under this reso18 lution after September 30, 2001.

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
AAM-12-159-E 

January 24, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10066A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0442 

Mr. Henry E. Schwarz 

Owner/Operator 

4301 Southwood Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Dear Mr. Schwarz: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10066. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 4, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an extension of Exemption No. 10066. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Henry E. Schwarz, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Henry E. Schwarz. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10066 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Henry E. Schwarz are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Henry E. Schwarz part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10066 to May 31, 2014, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10066 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10066. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER DE JESUS MONTERROSACRUZ, a.k.a. Walter De Jesus Monterrosa,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73071

Agency No. A037-222-334

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Walter De Jesus Monterrosa-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily

affirming his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73071

The agency denied Monterrosa-Cruz’s request for relief under former

section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), for failure to submit his

fingerprints by the deadline imposed by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). The

agency, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Cui v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that refusing to continue

proceedings for fingerprint processing may be an abuse of discretion. We remand

for the agency to reconsider its denial of Monterrosa-Cruz’s application in light of

Cui. See 538 F.3d at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118,

1129-32 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 692 

Recognizing November 24, 2018, as ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’ and celebrating the vital role of small businesses, along with the efforts of 

the Small Business Administration, to help people in the United States 

start, build, and grow businesses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COONS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

BOOKER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. MANCHIN, Mrs. ERNST, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. 

HATCH, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. INHOFE, 

Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. MORAN, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. WYDEN, 

Mr. RUBIO, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. UDALL, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

TESTER, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. KING, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, 

Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. 

ALEXANDER, Mr. DAINES, and Mr. PERDUE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing November 24, 2018, as ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’ and celebrating the vital role of small businesses, 

along with the efforts of the Small Business Administration, to help people in the United States start, build, 

and grow businesses. 

Whereas, as of November 2018, there are more than 

30,200,000 small businesses in the United States; 

Whereas small businesses in the United States— 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 692 ATS 

(1) represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the 

United States; 

(2) employ nearly 48 percent of private sector employees in the United States; 

(3) constitute almost 2 of every 3 new jobs; and 

(4) constitute 97.6 percent of firms that export 

goods; and 

Whereas November 24, 2018, is an appropriate day to recognize ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate joins the Small Business 

2 Administration in— 

3 (1) supporting the designation of November 24, 

4 2018, as ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’; 

5 (2) celebrating the entrepreneurial spirit of 

6 small business owners in the United States; 

7 (3) recognizing the importance of creating poli8 cies that promote a business-friendly environment 

9 for small business owners that is free of unnecessary 

10 and burdensome regulations and red tape; 

11 (4) supporting and encouraging young entre12 preneurs to pursue passions and create more startup 

13 businesses; and 

14 (5) celebrating the invaluable contribution that 

15 small businesses make to the United States as the 

16 backbone of the economy. 

Æ 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 93

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the

House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 93

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, April 4, 2001, or Thursday, April

4 5, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent

5 resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
2

•HCON 93 EH

1 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, or

2 until noon on the second day after Members are notified

3 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res4 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

5 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Friday,

6 April 6, 2001, Saturday, April 7, 2001, Sunday, April 8,

7 2001, or Monday, April 9, 2001, on a motion offered pur8 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader

9 or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

10 on Monday, April 23, 2001, or until such time on that

11 day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his des12 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

13 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem14 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

15 whichever occurs first.

16 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

17 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

18 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead19 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House
3

•HCON 93 EH

1 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

2 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives April 3, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Fabian SEGURA-VIACHI and Maria Asuncion Avila de Segura, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 76-1597

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 30, 1976.

*92Albert Armendariz, Sr., El Paso, Tex., for petitioners.

Edward H. Levi, Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John E. Clark, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Rex L. Young, Atty., Philip Wilens, Acting Chief, James P. Morris, Atty., Dept, of Justice Gov. Reg. & Labor Sect., Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

B. J. Rumaker, Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Ser., El Paso, Tex., Troy A. Adams, Jr., Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Ser., New Orleans, La., for other interested parties.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. The issue is whether the petitioner husband may take advantage of 8 U.S.C. § 1254, the suspension of deportation statute. We hold that he may not.

The government argues that § 1254 is not available because the husband has failed to meet the statute’s requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for the seven years immediately preceding the application for § 1254 relief. The government contends that the husband’s presence was significantly interrupted some four years prior to the § 1254 application by the husband’s admitted voluntary departure under threat of deportation. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1254(e). We agree. *Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg,*471 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972).

Petitioners argue that the seven year period need not immediately precede the application for § 1254 relief. The plain language of the statute contradicts this. Finally, petitioners assert that § 1254(f) gives an independent basis for relief not requiring a seven year presence. The statute will not bear such a construction. *See Gregor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service,*351 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965).

The petition is denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 15.3**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by referencein this Registration Statement on Form 20-F of Ambipar Emergency Response of our report dated August 31, 2022, except for Note 1.2, Note1.3, Note 3.1.15, Note 7, Note 9 and Note 23 as to which the date is December 12, 2022, relating to the combined financial statementsof Emergência Participações S.A., which appears in the Registration Statement on Form F-4 (No. 333-268795) of AmbiparEmergency Response. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Statement by Experts” in this Registration Statement on Form20-F.

 

/s/ BDO RCS Auditores Independentes S.S.

 

BDO RCS Auditores Independentes S.S.

Campinas, Brazil

March 7, 2023
Supply Chain 

Issues

• Trucking 

• Rail 

• Packaging Materials 

• Labor Shortages
Question: 

Supply chain issues are causing late deliveries. What 

should I do?
Answer:

1. Review the Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurements – Domestic 

Programs (MSCP-D).

2. Have open communication with AMS.

3. Bid accordingly. 
52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions—

Commercial Items (Oct 2018)

• See (f) Excusable Delays definition.

• Excusable delays will be determined on a case-by-case basis
4A52.211-82 Compensation for Delays in 

Delivery (June 2021) 

(a) If a Contractor determines that it will not be able to deliver the commodity by the 

Not-Later-Than (NLT) delivery date, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting 

Officer immediately. If the reason for not meeting the NLT delivery date is beyond 

the control or negligence of the Contractor, the Contractor is required to submit a 

request for extension of the delivery date at least 3 working days before the 

scheduled NLT delivery date. Failure to submit a request for extension within the 

time specified will result in liquidated damages being assessed. Requests submitted 

after the NLT delivery date will not be accepted. See clause 52.211-11, of the Master 

Solicitation. No extensions will be granted due to weekends or Federal holidays. 
• Important Notes

• Documentation of 

the excusable delay 

is required. 

• Modifications as a 

result of current 

conditions do not 

set precedent for 

future 

modifications. 
• Thinking Outside 

The Box

• Distribution 

Warehouses and 

audit requirements 

• Please feel free to 

share other ideas 

with AMS
• Questions?

• Contact Info

• Fruit and Tree Nut: 

Kyla Stoufer – kyla.stoufer@usda.go

v

• Vegetable: Kelli 

Dawkins – kelli.dawkins@usda.g

ov
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2022-B Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association 

Date: June 29, 2023 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
 
8 

**
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofNovember 17, 2021, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-3 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022
 
By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 28, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 28, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0011. PI KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY et al v. BLAINE N. MORRIS. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 22A044796
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0293

_____________________________

DARIUS RASHARD LIVINGSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

February 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

LEWIS, RAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Darius Rashard Livingston, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Exhibit
10.30 


 


AMENDMENT
7.5% PROMISSORY NOTE


DATED
DECEMBER 1, 2020


 


WHEREAS,
on December 1, 2020, Shuttle Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Obligor”), issued a $138,448.20
unsecured promissory note (the “Note”), in favor of Anatoly Dritschilo (the “Payee”), bearing interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum; the Note was originally due December 31, 2021 (the “Maturity Date”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Obligor and the Payee wish to amend the terms of the Note to extend the Maturity Date by six months to June 30, 2022 (the “New
Maturity Date”), to provide additional time for the Company to repay the Note and for the accrual of interest on the principal
amount of the Note during such extension.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Obligor and the Payee hereby agree that the unpaid principal balance of the Note shall be due and
payable on the New Maturity Date, along with any accrued interest through that date. All other terms and conditions of the Note shall
remain unchanged.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the Obligor and acknowledged by the Payee as of the 25th day
of January 2022.


 


	 	SHUTTLE
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Anatoly Dritschilo          
	 	Name:	Anatoly
    Dritschilo
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer


 


	Acknowledged
    and Agreed:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Anatoly Dritschilo	 
	Anatoly
    Dritschilo
#### Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 5227.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 20, 1981.

*311Mitchel J. Schapira, Anchorage, for appellant.

Robert C. Bundy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Larry J. Weeks, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Daniel W. Hickey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted upon his plea of nolo contendere to the crimes of inciting the commission of a crime in violation of AS 11.10.070 and grand larceny in violation of AS 11.20.140. The court sentenced appellant on the grand larceny count only, being of the view that multiple sentences were inappropriate under the rule established in *Whitton v. State,*479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970). Appellant was sentenced to a term of three years of imprisonment with one year suspended and was required to make restitution. Based on our review of the record we conclude that the trial judge considered all relevant sentencing factors,1 properly refused to consider unverified hearsay reports of prior criminal acts,2 and that the sentence imposed was not clearly mistaken.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The factors were first defined in *State v. Chaney,*477 P.2d 441, 444 (Alaska 1970).

2

. *See Parks v. State,*571 P.2d 1003, 1004 (Alaska 1977); *Sandvik v. State,*564 P.2d 20, 24 (Alaska 1976); *Thurlkill v. State,*551 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1976).