alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the matter of MEYER W. STEIN, an attorney at law.

Argued November 22, 1948.

For the rule: *Mr. William W. Evans.*

For the respondent: *Mr. Peter J. McGinnis.*

January 3, 1949.

Name of respondent ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys, Opinion reported at 1 N. J. 228.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4655 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or transportation of child sex dolls, 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, 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4655 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Curbing Realistic Ex3 ploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act of 2017’’ or 

4 as the ‘‘CREEPER Act of 2017’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 The Congress finds as follows: 

7 (1) There is a correlation between possession of 

8 the obscene dolls, and robots, and possession of and 

9 participation in child pornography. 

10 (2) The physical features, and potentially the 

11 ‘‘personalities’’ of the robots are customizable or 

12 morphable and can resemble actual children. 

13 (3) Some owners and makers of the robots have 

14 made their children interact with the robots as if the 

15 robots are members of the family. 

16 (4) The robots can have settings that simulate 

17 rape. 

18 (5) The dolls and robots not only lead to rape, 

19 but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist 

20 about how to overcome resistance and subdue the 

21 victim. 

22 (6) For users and children exposed to their use, 

23 the dolls and robots normalize submissiveness and 

24 normalize sex between adults and minors. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4655 RFS 

1 (7) As the Supreme Court has recognized, ob2 scene material is often used as part of a method of 

3 seducing child victims. 

4 (8) The dolls and robots are intrinsically related 

5 to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, 

6 objectification, abuse, and rape of minors. 

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OR TRANSPOR8 TATION OF CHILD SEX DOLLS. 

9 Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (a), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

12 end; 

13 (2) in paragraph (b), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

14 end; 

15 (3) by inserting after paragraph (c) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(d) any child sex doll; or’’; and 

18 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘In this section, the term ‘child sex doll’ means an ana20 tomically-correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 4655 RFS 

1 features of, or with features that resemble those of, a 

2 minor, intended for use in sexual acts.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications for Form 10-Q**I, Curtis S. Reis, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Alliance Bancshares California;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a—15(e) and15d—15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2007 Name: /s/ Curtis S. Reis       Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

No. 122
```
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

Northern Border Partners, L.P.
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year ended December 31,
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1999          2000         2001         2002         2003
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
Fixed charges:

Interest expensed and capitalized                           67,807        81,881       91,653       83,227       79,159

Estimate of interest within rental expense                     402           864        1,091        1,112        1,210
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges                                         68,209        82,745       92,744       84,339       80,369
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings:

Pretax income from continuing operations                    81,356        77,098       88,793      114,212      (86,642)

Minority interest in net income                             35,568        38,119       42,138       42,816       44,460

Equity (earnings) losses from equity investees                   0           647       (1,697)     (14,570)     (18,815)

Distributed income of equity investees                           0           933        7,083       10,820       16,262

Interest capitalized                                             0           (58)        (834)        (304)        (117)

Fixed charges                                               68,209        82,745       92,744       84,339       80,369
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------

Total earnings                                             185,133       199,484      228,227      237,313       35,517
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                            2.71          2.41         2.46         2.81         0.44
                                                           ============================================================
</TABLE>
16303	Waterman	Drive

Van	Nuys,	California	91406

Tel:					+1	818.902.0229

Fax:			+1	818.902.9278

www.helinet.com

May 12, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave ., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re

. Petition to Amend FAA Exemption No. 11160 (the “Exemption”)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Helinet Aviation Services, LLC , hereby requests approva l to amend the Exemption to include the operation

of unmanned aircraft systems ( “ UAS ” ) for electronic ne ws gathering (“ENG”)

.

On Feb ruary 2, 2015, the FAA issued the Exemption to Helinet to utilize UAS for motion picture and

television filming.

On April 22, 2015, the FAA granted Exemption No. 11408 to ArrowData, LLC for ENG use . The terms and

condition s of the ArrowData exemption are identical to Helinet’s with the exception of : (i) the requirement to

obtain a Plan of Activities prior to commencement of filming

, and (ii) the industry /purpose for UAS usage

. Because the FAA has already approved Helinet to o perate UAS essentially un der same terms as

ArrowData, amending the Exemption to include ENG does not expand the approval already received by

Helinet. As such, other than the se two changes

, Helinet is merely seeking to operate UAS under the same

terms and conditions contained in the Exemption

.

Perhaps more importantly, Helinet has performed ENG servic es with manned aircraft for 25 years. For this

reason, Helinet fully understands the requirements to operate aircraft in a safe manner in a news gath ering

environment (attached herewith is a page from Helinet’s website regarding its ENG operations)

.

All UAS operations will continue to fully adhere to the conditions of the Exemption and all operations will be

in full compliance with the terms of the Ex emption.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 818.902.0229.

Sincerely yours,

Jack Snyder

Vice President and General Counsel

Helinet Aviation Services, LLC
Summary of Director Compensation Arrangements




 EXHIBIT 10.67 
  
 Summary of Director Compensation Arrangements 
  
 We currently pay each director who is not employed by us or any of our affiliates (i.e., all of our
directors except for our Chairman, Frank F. Khulusi) an annual retainer of $24,000 (paid quarterly), $2,500 for each board meeting attended in person and $500 for each board meeting attended by phone, and $1,000 for each committee meeting attended
in person or $500 for each committee meeting attended by phone. We also pay the chairman of each board committee an additional annual retainer of $2,500 (paid quarterly) for serving in such capacity. Directors who are employed by us or any of
our affiliates are not paid any additional compensation for their service on our Board of Directors. We reimburse each of our directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur in connection with their service on our Board of Directors.
We have entered into indemnification agreements, a form of which is attached as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K, with each of our directors. 
  
 Our directors are also eligible to participate in our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, which is administered by
our Compensation Committee under authority delegated by our Board of Directors. The terms and conditions of option grants to our non-employee directors under our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan are determined in the discretion of our Compensation
Committee, and must be consistent with the terms of the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, which is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
  
 The compensation arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified from time to time
by our Board of Directors.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

To the Board of Directors of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp.:

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated February 11, 2004 (which report and consolidated financial statements are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included an audit of the
financial statement schedules listed in Item 15(a)(2) of this Form 10-K. In our
opinion, these financial statement schedules present fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the
related consolidated financial statements.

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2002 the
Company changed its method of accounting for goodwill to conform with Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets."

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, PA
February 11, 2004
Exhibit 4.2.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INDENTURE


March 30, 2005


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INDENTURE is made by Phoenix Color Corp., a Delaware Corporation (the “Issuer”), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), pursuant to Section 9.02 of the Indenture dated February 2, 1999, by and among the Issuer, certain subsidiaries of the Issuer as guarantors, and the Trustee (the “Indenture”).


WHEREAS, on December 29, 2004, (i) the Issuer purchased the equipment described on Exhibit A hereto (the “Leased Equipment”) from the lessors of such Leased Equipment (the “Purchase Transaction”) and (ii) immediately thereafter, conveyed to R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (“Donnelley”) the Leased Equipment together with certain other equipment of the Issuer used in the Issuer’s manufacturing facility known as “Book Technology Park”, all on the terms and conditions set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B hereto (the “Sale Transaction”); 


WHEREAS, the consideration paid by Donnelley to the Issuer in the Sale Transaction was equal in amount to the consideration paid by the Issuer to purchase the Leased Equipment in the Purchase Transaction; 


WHEREAS, the Issuer and the Trustee wish to amend the Indenture to specifically permit the Purchase Transaction and the Sale Transaction and to provide that neither the Purchase Transaction nor the Sale Transaction shall be deemed to have breached any of the covenants or other obligations of the Issuer pursuant to the Indenture; and


WHEREAS, the holder of a majority in principal amount of the 10-3/8% Senior Subordinated Notes of the Issuer has consented to such amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Indenture is hereby amended to specifically permit the Purchase Transaction and the Sale Transaction and to provide that neither the Purchase Transaction nor the Sale Transaction shall be deemed to have breached any of the covenants or other obligations of the Issuer pursuant to the Indenture.


 


 









 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Indenture, effective as of the date first hereinabove written.


 


 


PHOENIX COLOR CORP.


 



	
            By:  
 	
            /s/  Edward Lieberman
Edward Lieberman, Chief Executive Officre
 



 


JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, 


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


 



	
            By:  
 	
            /s/  Francine Springer
Francine Springer, Vice President
 



 


 


2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aubrey Wynn, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him concerning a pending drug sale charge. Because the defendant, in his direct case, denied ever selling drugs, the prosecutor’s inquiry into the pending drug sale charge was admissible to contradict and otherwise respond to the direct testimony *(see, People v Betts,*70 NY2d 289, 295). Further, that cross-examination was admissible pursuant to the intent exception to the *Molineux*rule *(see, People v Hernandez, 71**660NY2d 233, 246-247) or the accident or mistake exception *(see, People v Henson,*33 NY2d 63, 72-73).

Defendant also contends that his absence at a *Sandoval*conference deprived him of his right to be present at a material stage of his trial. Because defendant failed to object to the court’s consideration of the *Sandoval*motion in his absence, this issue has not been preserved for our review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice *(see, People v Dunbar,*172 AD2d 1006; *People v Howard,*167 AD2d 922). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.— Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements: 

(1) Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-132302, 333-122551, 333-112448, 333-103228, 333-81396, 333-33338,333-51117, and 333-06301) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan of Ultratech, Inc., 

(2)Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-83954 and 333-43952) pertaining to the Supplemental Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan of Ultratech, Inc., 

(3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-93653) pertaining to the 1998 Supplemental Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan of Ultratech, Inc., 

(4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85161) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan, 1998Supplemental Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan, and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Ultratech, Inc., and 

(5)Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-33197) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Ultratech, Inc.; 

of Ultratech, Inc. of our reports dated March 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ultratech, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Ultratech, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 1, 2011
# C_2008272EN.01001002.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/10

---

Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-343/08)

(2008/C 272/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová, N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Commission asks the Court to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the domestic legal provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (1), and, in particular, by failing to implement Article 8, Article 9 in its entirety, Articles 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 22(1) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the domestic legal provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (1), and, in particular, by failing to implement Article 8, Article 9 in its entirety, Articles 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 22(1) thereof;

1

| — | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the Directive in the domestic legal order expired on 23 September 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10.

1

---
Exhibit 21


                          BUCKHEAD AMERICA CORPORATION
                            (A Delaware Corporation)

                              SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                             As of December 31, 2001


                              Delaware Corporations
                              ---------------------
                               BLM Virginia, Inc.
                                 BLM Prime, Inc.
                             CHI Sandy Springs, Inc.
                           BAC Hotel Management, Inc.
                              BLM EB Orlando, Inc.
                                  BLM EB, Inc.
                                 CHI Dixie, Inc.
                              BLM EB Daytona, Inc.
                                   BLM-F, Inc.
                                  BLM-RH, Inc.
                                  BLM-RF, Inc.
                              BAC Franchising Inc.


                                Texas Corportion
                                ----------------
                         Country Hearth Inns/Texas, Inc.


                               Georgia Corporation
                               -------------------
                       Country Hearth Inns - Dalton, Inc.

                                Ohio Corporations
                                -----------------
                          The Lodge Keeper Group, Inc.
                 Integrated Motel Management Group of Ohio, Inc.
                                  HOMANCO, Inc.
                             LKG Development I, Inc.


                                  Michigan LLC
                                  ------------
                              CHI Grand Rapids, LLC



1457946v1
#### In the Matter of Julius A. Westfall, Petitioner, v Kenneth H. Lange, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent dated October 10, 1990, which, upon reargument, denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

As one of Westchester County’s pistol licensing officers, the respondent has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications, which he may deny for any good cause (Penal Law § 400.00 [1]; *Matter of Anderson v Mogavero,*116 AD2d 885; *Matter of King v Ingraham,,*113 AD2d 977). Under the facts of this case, we find that the respondent had good cause for denying the petitioner’s application by virtue of (1) the petitioner’s prior arrest which was based upon his admittedly having misrepresented his identity to a police officer when stopped for speeding, (2) the petitioner’s having failed to disclose, under oath, his arrest history on the permit application, and, (3) the petitioner’s subsequent misrepresentations to the court as to the circumstances leading to and the reasons for his nondisclosure. In light of those facts, we simply cannot say that the respondent’s determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, and therefore it will not be disturbed. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.