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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4698 

To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial 

Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial 

disclosure reports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2017 

Mr. JEFFRIES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority 

of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information 

contained in their financial disclosure reports, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Redaction Au5 thority Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4698 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CON2 CERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMA3 TION. 

4 Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act 

5 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘2017’’ 

7 both places it appears and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD 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 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
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 officers 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 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 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
officers 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:

(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: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | Name: |  | /s/ Curtis S. Reis
|                      |  |  |  |       |  | Title:             |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 EXTENSION OF THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

  (Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to promote the extension of 
the production tax credit. Thousands of jobs in Colorado and across the 
Nation are dependent upon this incentive for good, clean energy here in 
the United States, thousands of manufacturing jobs made right here, 
wind production right here in America.
  In Colorado, we have substantial manufacturing plants with Vestis; we 
have vendors who supply these particular manufacturers for this good 
clean energy. Yet we have the production tax credit that's about to 
expire.
  Bipartisan support is in Colorado where we have virtually every 
Member, Democrats and Republicans, as well as you heard Mr. Blumenauer 
say he has a Republican cosponsor for this. But the Republican 
leadership will not bring it up, and it's been removed from the 
platform of the Republican Party.
  These are good jobs in America. It's clean energy for our country. 
It's good for national security. If we make these things, these big 
windmills in America, we will make it in America.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1481-E1482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  WHITE MEADOW TEMPLE 60TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The 
Congregation of White Meadow Temple of Rockaway Township, Morris 
County, New Jersey for the celebration of its 60th Anniversary this 
year.
  Initially a popular vacation spot for Jews from New York City and 
Newark in the 1940s, White Meadow Temple was founded in 1952 as a 
result of an increasing suburban Jewish population in Rockaway 
Township. Worship quickly commenced, beginning in 1953. In the years 
spanning 1955 and 1989, Rabbi Jacob Weitman served as the temple's 
spiritual leader, overseeing an era blossoming in both membership and 
dedication.
  In 1964 the temple's building at 153 White Meadow Road underwent 
major renovations to accommodate for an increasing membership. Nearly 
20 years later, White Meadow Temple renovated again in 1985, this time 
building a new sanctuary, two kitchens and additional Hebrew school 
classrooms.
  Strengthening the foundation that Rabbi Weitman and the succeeding 
Rabbi Ralph Dalin laid, today, White Meadow Temple maintains its Jewish 
vision and principles while also expanding its involvement in the 
community. The conservative temple takes pride in its reputation and as 
a warm, active and egalitarian congregation.
  In addition to services, which occur on Shabbat, weekday evenings, 
and Sunday

[[Page E1482]]

mornings, the congregation also partakes in the Synagogue's educational 
and social endeavors. Encouraging participating of younger generations 
on a spiritual level, the Temple also holds a Junior Congregation and 
Tot Shabbat services. Ranging from a Nursery School and Kindergarten to 
Youth groups, Senior Group, and a Women's league, White Meadow Temple 
offers everyone a chance to get involved and find their niche both in 
and out of the Jewish community.
  After 60 years of passionate leadership, White Meadow Temple is 
currently overseen by President Marc Levine and services are lead by 
Rabbi Benjamin Adler. May that clear commitment and involvement of the 
congregation in the community uphold the mission of the White Meadow 
Temple and continue to inspire future generations!
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating 
The White Meadow Temple of Rockaway Township, Morris County, New 
Jersey, on reaching their 60th Anniversary.

                          ____________________
```
#### In the Matter of Dewey S. Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, Petitioner; Joan T. et al., Respondents; Legal Aid Society, Nonparty Appellant.

— In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to determine the placement of a child, the Legal Aid Society appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated October 2, 1990, as relieved it from its appointment as Law Guardian for the child Dewey S. and denied its application for visitation between the child and his maternal aunt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On April 2, 1987, three-month-old Dewey S. was adjudicated a neglected child and placed in the custody of the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services. Thereafter, the child was placed in foster care with a family residing in Albany. In 1989, the Commissioner filed a petition seeking to extend Dewey’s placement for an additional 12-month period. While that petition was pending, Dewey’s foster parents moved to discharge the child’s Law Guardian, an attorney on the staff of the Legal Aid Society, alleging that she was biased against them because she had recommended *921that Dewey be placed in the care of his maternal aunt. The Family Court granted the foster parents’ application for removal of the Law Guardian, citing a "conflict of interest”.

On appeal, the Law Guardian contends that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in terminating her representation of the child. We agree. The record fails to disclose any conflict or potential conflict of interest which would bar the Law Guardian from representing the child *(see, Matter of Stern v Stein,*130 Misc 2d 609). A Law Guardian’s role in a child protective proceeding not only includes serving as counsel and advocate for the child, but also encompasses aiding the court in arriving at an appropriate disposition *(see, Matter of Apel,*96 Misc 2d 839, 842-843). A Law Guardian may thus attempt to persuade the court to adopt that position which, in the Law Guardian’s judgment, would best promote the child’s interest *(see, Matter of Apel, supra).*Upon our review of the record, we find that the Law Guardian did not exceed the proper parameters of her role, and that her discharge on the ostensible grounds of "conflict of interest” was improvident.

Following discharge of the Law Guardian in the Kings County proceeding, in February 1991 the foster parents commenced a termination of parental rights proceeding in Albany County to free Dewey for adoption, and a new Law Guardian was appointed to represent the child in the Albany proceeding. Accordingly, although the former Law Guardian’s discharge was unwarranted, under the circumstances as they presently exist, we decline to disturb the order appealed from. Eiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Map Created: March 2014

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2012

Per Capita Market Income Rates in Appalachia, 2012

(County Rates)

Per capita market income is a measure of an area's total 

personal income, less transfer payments, divided by the resident 

population of the area. The map uses natural breaks in the 

distribution to organize the data into groups of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

$10,418 - $17,881

$17,882 - $22,371

$22,372 - $28,181

$28,182 - $42,750

Per Capita Market Income

U.S. average = $36,223

Appalachian average = $27,359

(Natural Breaks Classification)
#### Herbert SUDIK, Zula Marie Sudik, W. T. Tunderburk, surviving partner, d/b/a Gilliland Land Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ervin F. SPAETH, Vaughn X. Spaeth, Paul L. Spaeth, Ervin L. Spaeth, James N. Spaeth, Roy M. Heffley and The First National Bank and Trust Company, a corporation, Defendants in Error.

No. 36461.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 3, 1954.

*238Renegar & Renegar, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Washington, Thompson & Wheeler, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought an action on a contract and on trial to the court the defendants Ervin F. Spaeth et al., moved for a judgment on the pleadings and opening statement of counsel. This motion was granted and judgment entered for defendants as prayed for. in the motion.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for. new trial and attempt to appeal from the order overruling the same. It is conceded that if the appeal is not properly perfected from the order overruling the motion for new trial the motion should be sustained.

The appeál must be dismissed under the rule announced in Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co., 174 Okl. 335, 50 P.2d 335. Therein it is stated:

> “Where judgment is rendered upon the pleadings and opening statement of .counsel, the filing and determination of a motion for new trial serves rip purpose to extend the time in which the appeal may be filed past the six months from the rendition of the judgment upon said pleadings and opening statement.”

See, also, Koury v. Vogel, 191 Okl. 374, 130 P.2d 93, and cases therein cited.

Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, ARr NOLD and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. .
EXHIBIT 10.3


 


SUMMARY SHEET FOR NAMED

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS COMPENSATION


 


Summary of named executive officers' current base salary and most
recent bonus:


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Annual

  Salary

  	
   

  	
  Bonus

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  James R. Swartwout

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   385,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   65,000

  	
   

  
	
  Trygve M. Thoresen

  	
   

  	
  Vice President of Business Development,

  Secretary and General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   250,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   55,000

  	
   

  
	
  Paul A. Walbrun

  	
   

  	
  Vice President and Controller

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   145,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   20,000

  	
   

  
	
  Miriam C. Rivera

  	
   

  	
  Vice President of Human Resources

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   136,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
   10,000

  	
   

  



 


Non-employee director’s compensation:


 


Non-employee directors of the Corporation receive a fee of $1,250 in
cash for each Board of Directors meeting attended and are reimbursed for
related travel expenses.  Non-employee directors serving on Board
committees receive a fee of $1,250 in cash for each committee meeting
attended.   In addition, non-employee directors shall receive an
annual fee of $15,000 in cash or,
at their election, a grant of a nonstatutory stock option to acquire up to
5,000 shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock, issued under the Corporation’s
stock option plans on the date of the Corporation’s annual stockholders
meeting, with an exercise price equal to the average of the high and low trading
prices of the Corporation’s Common Stock on that date.  Non-employee
directors serving on Board committees receive an annual fee of $6,000 in cash
(increased to $10,000 for the Chairman of the Audit Committee and $7,000 for
the Chairman of the Compensation Committee), or at their election, a grant of a
nonstatutory stock option to acquire up to 2,000 additional shares of the
Corporation’s Common Stock, calculated as described above.  Each
non-employee director elected to receive all cash in the current fiscal year.
# Budget and Policy - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Sarah Baron Budget Analyst.The post Sarah Baron appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Jill Wilmoth Special Assistant.The post Jill Wilmoth appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Guy Land Congressional Liaison Specialist.The post Guy Land appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Order entered June 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00006-CR

No. 05-15-00007-CR

No. 05-15-00008-CR

No. 05-15-00009-CR

GARY WAYNE BARNES SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F80-16530-J; F81-01027-J; F81-01105-J; F81-02518-J 

ORDER

We GRANT Official Court Reporter Kimberly Xavier’s June 23, 2015 request for an 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due FIFTEEN 

DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4669 

To ensure independent investigations by allowing judicial review of the 

removal of a special counsel, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2017 

Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure independent investigations by allowing judicial review of the removal of a special counsel, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Special Counsel Integ5 rity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A special counsel appointed under 

8 Department of Justice regulations may be disciplined or 

9 removed from office only by the personal action of an At10 torney General who has been confirmed by the Senate, or, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4669 IH

1 if the Attorney General is recused from the matter, the 

2 most senior Department of Justice official who has been 

3 confirmed by the Senate and is not recused from the mat4 ter. 

5 (b) CAUSE FOR REMOVAL.—A special counsel ap6 pointed under Department of Justice regulations may only 

7 be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, 

8 conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation 

9 of policies of the Department of Justice. 

10 (c) NOTICE OF REMOVAL.—The Attorney General, or 

11 other Department of Justice official described in sub12 section (a), as the case may be, shall inform the special 

13 counsel in writing of the specific reason for the removal. 

14 (d) REVIEW.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual removed under 

16 subsection (b) may file an action in accordance with 

17 paragraph (2) that the removal was in violation of 

18 this section. 

19 (2) REQUIREMENTS.—An action filed under 

20 this subsection shall be heard and determined by a 

21 court of 3 judges not later than 14 days after the 

22 date on which the action is filed in accordance with 

23 the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United 

24 States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme 

25 Court. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4669 IH

1 (3) REINSTATEMENT.—If a court determines 

2 that an individual was removed from a position in 

3 violation of this section, the individual shall be im4 mediately reinstated to the position of special coun5 sel. 

6 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply to any 

7 special counsel appointed on or after May 17, 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2013156EN.01002602.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AEPI v Commission

(Case T-392/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/44

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by P. Xanthopoulos and T. Asprogerakas Grivas, then T. Asprogerakas Grivas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted initially by M. Moustakali, then S. Dempegiotis, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE;

| 2. | Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as it concerns AEPI; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as it concerns AEPI;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of AEPI’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of AEPI’s costs;

| 5. | Orders AEPI to bear one half of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders AEPI to bear one half of its own costs;

| 6. | Orders the Commission and AEPI to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Commission and AEPI to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---