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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4581 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop 

best practices for utilizing advanced passenger information and passenger name record data for counterterrorism screening and vetting operations, and for other 

purposes. 

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


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4581 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Screening and Vetting 

3 Passenger Exchange Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PASSENGER SCREENING BEST PRACTICES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Home7 land Security shall develop best practices for utilizing ad8 vanced passenger information and passenger name record 

9 data for counterterrorism screening and vetting oper10 ations. 

11 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland 

12 Security shall, to the greatest extent practicable— 

13 (1) make available to certain countries, includ14 ing visa waiver program countries under section 217 

15 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

16 1187), the best practices required under subsection 

17 (a); and 

18 (2) provide assistance to such countries in im19 plementing such best practices. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2009113EN.01002901.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-291/08) (1)

1

2009/C 113/56

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
# C_2011347EN.01002801.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission

(Case T-561/08) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Biocidal products - Establishment of a list of active substances on the market - Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC - Causal link)

2011/C 347/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Gutknecht (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss suffered following the allegedly unlawful adoption by the Commission of various regulations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) or, in the alternative, following the alleged failure by the Commission to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the right to protection of information supplied under that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jürgen Gutknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jürgen Gutknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

               In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Alliance Bancshares California (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel L. Erickson, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

               (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct 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.

|   | /s/ DANIEL L. ERICKSON                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                       |
|   | **Executive Vice President  Chief Financial Officer** |

Date:  May 14,2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alliance Bancshares California and will be retained by Alliance Bancshares California andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Lee - Appalachian Regional Commission

- LENOWISCO Planning District Commission Executive Director Duane A. Miller Email &#100;&#x6d;&#105;&#x6c;&#108;&#x65;&#114;&#x40;&#108;&#x65;&#110;&#x6f;&#119;&#x69;&#115;&#x63;&#111;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post LENOWISCO Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                              403,015
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    729,250
<PP&E>                              425,058
<DEPRECIATION>                     (257,094)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,401,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,090,644
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             4,993,334
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         16,483,837
<OTHER-SE>                        2,320,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,401,096
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  721,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (3,187,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (3,187,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (3,187,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.29)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2008223EN.01003601.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/36

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2008 by Leche Celta SL against the judgment delivered on 23 April 2008 in Case T-35/07 Leche Celta SL v OHMI

(Case C-300/08 P)

(2008/C 223/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Leche Celta SL (represented by: J Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs), Celia SA

Other party/parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2008 in Case T-35/07 on the grounds that the marks CELIA/CELTA are clearly incompatible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2008 in Case T-35/07 on the grounds that the marks CELIA/CELTA are clearly incompatible;

| — | Order payment of costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order payment of costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal the appellant challenges in essence the assessment made by the Court of First Instance on the similarity of the marks at issue. According to the appellant, the similarity of the two marks is such that the relevant public will not be able to detect any difference between them, the more so when the goods covered by them are identical. The Court therefore committed several errors of assessment by judging the degree of verbal and conceptual similarity between the marks at issue to be low.

---
October 19, 2015

Mr. William J. Tweedy

103 Los Santos Court

Vallejo, CA 94590

Dear Mr. Tweedy:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 21, 2015, and filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3074, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. SCHOCK:
       H.R. 6267.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 8 of the United 
     States Constitution.
```
**EXHIBIT 10.12**

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT**

This First Amendment to the Severance Agreement by andbetween The National Bank and Trust Company, a national banking association (hereinafter referred to as “NB&T”), and                 , an individual(hereinafter referred to as “Employee”), is effective December 16, 2008. 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Severance Agreement as of November 8, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 of the Employment Agreement, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement to make certain changes necessaryunder Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

NOW,THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above as follows: 

1. The following subsection(E) is hereby added to the end of Section 2(c)(i) of the Severance Agreement: 

(E) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no amounts willbe distributed pursuant to this Section 4(c)(i) unless the events or actions giving rise to the Change of Control also constitute a “change of control event” under Section 409A of the Code and Treasury Regulation§1.409A-3(i)(5). 

2. The last sentence of Section 2(e)(ii) of the Severance Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following issubstituted therefor: 

Any reduction pursuant to this Section 2(e)(ii) shall be first applied against amounts that are not subject toSection 409A of the Code and, thereafter, shall be applied against all remaining amounts subject to Section 409A of the Code on a pro rata basis. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HOLDING COMPANY and the BANK have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers and the EMPLOYEE has signed this First Amendment, each as of the day and yearfirst above written. 

 

 

 

80
Schedule of 2004 Bonuses for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.44 
  
  
  
 U-STORE-IT TRUST 
  
 Schedule of 2004 Bonuses for Named Executive Officers 
  
  

					
	 Name and Principal Position

	  	2004 Bonus

	 
		
	 Robert J. Amsdell
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	0        	 
	 Steven G. Osgood
     President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	150,000	(1)
	 Todd C. Amsdell
     Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	150,000	(1)
	 Tedd D. Towsley
     Vice President and Treasurer
	  	$	100,000	(2)


  

	(1)	Excludes 62,500 deferred shares (with a value of $1.0 million), which were granted on October 27, 2004 in connection with the closing of the Company’s initial public offering.


  

	(2)	Excludes 18,750 deferred shares (with a value of $0.3 million), which were granted on October 27, 2004 in connection with the closing of the Company’s initial public offering.
## EPA’s SF 6 

## Emission Reduction Partnershi p for Electric Power Systems Partners Meeting
May 13-14
Dallas, Texas


## Partners

Mary Archer Project Manager

FPL mary.archer@fpl.com

Ray Averitt Director of Environment, Safety & Industrial

Health

Oncor Raymond.Averitt@oncor.com

John Bigi Supervisor, Environmental Affair Duquesne Light Company jbigi@duqlight.com

Fred Blood Environmental Program Coordinator Austin Energy fred.blood@austinenergy.com

Kenneth Boyd Environmental Specialist Southern Company kwboyd@southernco.com

Deborah Boyle

Oncor

Tina Broyles Senior Manager, Power System Operations Environmental Permits & Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority tibroyles@tva.gov

Lauren Casey

Oncor Lauren.Casey@oncor.com Mitchell Contraras Staff Environmental Specialist CenterPoint Energy, Houston Electric, LLC Mitch.Contreras@CenterPointEnergy.com

Keith Cowgill

Oncor

Brad Evans

Oncor

Darrell Goains

Oncor

Mike Hamilton

Oncor

Joe Hazlewood

Oncor

Dennis Johnson

Oncor

Nicole King Sr. Engineer

Nashville Electric Service nking@nespower.com

Neil Kratzinger

T&S Environmental Coordinator

PECO/ Exelon Neil.kratzinger@exeloncorp.com

Jamie Kurland Project Coordinator San Diego Gas and Electric JKurland@semprautilities.com

Robert Lee Senior Engineer Lower Colorado River Authority robert.lee@lcra.org

EPA SF 6 Partner Meeting Participants May 2010 1

## EPA’s SF 6 

## Emission Reduction Partnershi p for Electric Power Systems Partners Meeting
May 13-14
Dallas, Texas

EPA SF 6 Partner Meeting Participants May 2010 2 Steve Lowder

SF6 Coordinator

Bonneville Power Administration smlowder@bpa.gov

Steve Martinez

Electrician Lower Colorado River Authority Steve.Martinez@LCRA.org

Andy Mccabe Senior Engineer

AEP akmccabe@aep.com

Mike McNulty Environmental Manager

ITC mmcnulty@itctransco.com

Price Robertson

Oncor

Alex Salinas Manager 3

Southerm California Edison

Alex.Salinas@sce.com

Steve Scalcucci

Prin Work Plan Coordinator

ComEd

steven.scalcucci@comed.com

Mark Slezak Operations Coordinator

ComEd

mark.slezak@ComEd.com

David Smithberger

Transmission Coordinator Allegheny Power dsmithb@alleghenypower.com Roger Stephens

Oncor

Theo Theodorou Area Manager Consolidated Edison Company of New York

theodorout@coned.com

Clint Whitfield

Oncor

Wanda Wilkerson

Oncor

Terry Wilson

Oncor

## EPA’s SF 6 

## Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems Partners Meeting
May 13-14
Dallas, Texas



## Speakers

Mollie Averyt Manager

ICF International maveryt@icfi.com

Michelle Garcia

CARB mgarcia@arb.ca.gov

Bradley Hall

NOAA Bradley.Hall@noaa.gov

Sally Rand Program Manager

US EPA Rand.Sally@epam ail.epa.gov

Paul Stewart Analyst

ICF International pstewart@icfi.com

Michael Tubman Congressional Affairs Fellow Pew Center on Global Climate Change TubmanM@pewclimate.org 

## Service Providers

Craig O’Neill

FLIR craig.oneill@flir.com

Rob Raymer Sr. District Sales Manager

FLIR rob.raymer@flir.com

Lukas Rothlisberger

CEO DILO Company Inc.

lukasr@dilo.com

EPA SF 6 Partner Meeting Participants May 2010 3
#### Williamsville Central School District, Respondent, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: To be entitled to summary judgment with respect to its fourth affirmative defense and counterclaim, defendant was obligated to establish, by proof in admissible form, that it *648retained no interest in the property for which plaintiff seeks payment of Tax Revenue Impact Payments *(see, Williamsville Cent. School Dist. v New York State Urban*Dev. *Corp.,*142 AD2d 981; *see also,*McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 6253 [8]; § 6255 [29] [New York State Urban Development Corporation Act § 3 (8); § 5 (29); L 1968, ch 174, § 1, as amended]). We find that defendant failed to meet that burden, and summary judgment was properly denied. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         PERSONAL EXPLANATION--

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM GRAVES

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, August 7, 2012

  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539, on the 
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 
3803), I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009141EN.01004201.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Perry v Commission

(Case T-280/08) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Limitation period - Admissibility)

2009/C 141/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Claude Perry (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Culioli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded by the Commission with the applicant’s companies.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Claude Perry is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Claude Perry is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lee May, Also Known as Wydell Simpkins, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 6, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claims with respect to portions of the prosecutor’s summation are for the most part unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). Moreover, the prosecutor’s comments constituted fair response to defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Hopkins,*58 NY2d 1079; *People v Allen,*121 AD2d 453, *affd*69 NY2d 915). Consequently, we disagree with the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor engaged in conduct during summation which deprived him of a fair trial.

We find that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# C_2010301EN.01002502.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Travel Service v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)

(Case T-72/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark smartWings - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks EUROWINGS and EuroWings - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 301/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Travel Service a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová and R. Charvát, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2007 (Case R 1515/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG and Travel Service a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Travel Service a.s. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Travel Service a.s. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---