alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 390 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 390

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
        Designating September 17, 1994, as ``Constitution Day''.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States is the cornerstone of the Nation's 
        system of government under law;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States signifies the importance of the 
        rule of law and affirms the Nation's dedication to the principles of 
        freedom and justice;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States is recognized by many to be the 
        most significant and important document in history for establishing 
        freedom and justice through democracy;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides the framework of the 
        Nation's law, spirit, and beliefs;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States deserves the recognition, respect, 
        and reverence of all Americans;
Whereas every American should celebrate the freedom and responsibilities of the 
        Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas the Constitution of the United States was signed on September 17, 1787: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That September 17, 1994, is 
designated as ``Constitution Day'', and the President is authorized and 
requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United 
States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 5, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 390

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

        Designating September 17, 1994, as ``Constitution Day''.`
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 45

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the number of consecutive terms for Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States limiting the number of consecutive terms for

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 45 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 by the Congress:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. A person may not serve any portion of

5 a term as a Representative if the person has served as

6 a Representative for more than one year of each of the

7 six terms that immediately precede the term.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. A person may not serve any portion of

9 a term as a Senator if the person has served as a Senator

10 for more than three years of each of the two terms that

11 immediately precede the term.

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall not prevent a person

13 who is serving any portion of a term as a Representative

14 or Senator on the date of the ratification of this article

15 from serving the remainder of the term.’’.

Æ
SBLF Investments

$ 123,365,000

Institution City State Amount Financial Instrument 

6/21/2011 ServisFirst Birmingham AL 40,000,000 Preferred Shares 

6/30/2011 Level One Bancorp, Inc. Farmington Hills MI 11,301,000 Preferred Shares 

6/30/2011 Pioneer Bank, SSB Drippings Springs TX 3,004,000 Preferred Shares 

6/30/2011 Virginia Heritage Bank Fairfax VA 15,300,000 Preferred Shares 

7/6/2011 Community Trust Financial Corporation Ruston LA 48,260,000 Preferred Shares 

7/6/2011 U&I Financial Corp Lynnwood WA 5,500,000 Preferred Shares 

1Denotes issuers that participated in the Community Development Capital Initiative (“CDCI”) or the Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) and applied to redeem the CDCI or CPP inv

16, 2010.

Transaction

Date

Total aggregate SBLF investment amount as of July 7, 2011:

Issuer Transaction
Capital Ratios

Tier 1 Risk‐Based

Capital

Total Risk‐Based

Capital Tier 1 Leverage

6/21/2011 ServisFirst 10.0% 11.5% 8.0%6/30/2011 Level One Bancorp, Inc 18.6% 19.6% 10.3%

6/30/2011 Pioneer Bank, SSB 18.2% 19.1% 11.6%6/30/2011 Virginia Heritage Bank 10.3% 11.4% 9.1%

7/6/2011 Community Trust Financial Corp 9.6% 10.8% 8.3%

7/6/2011 U&I Financial Corp 20.3% 21.6% 15.4%

Transaction

Date

Capital Ratios1

Issuer

1 Capital ratios reported as of March 31, 2011.
Case 3:22-cr-00335-X Document 48 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 72
# CE2004078EN.01038602.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/386

---

(2004/C 78 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs

Subject:

Video cassette and DVD purchases have greatly stimulated the dissemination of culture, benefiting in particular the European film industry, since high-quality reproduction can be obtained from equipment which is reliable, easy to use and inexpensive.

The vitality of this sector is reflected by a 20 % increase in demand for rent or purchase in 2002 compared with the previous year. Despite the high level of demand for cultural products of this nature, further expansion is being hampered by high VAT rates with no reductions as is the case with cinema entrance tickets and pay television, for example.

Does the Commission intend to extend Annex H of the sixth VAT directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC (2)), removing or reducing VAT on video cassette and DVD-related goods and services so as to support the European film industry?

1

2

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

(9 July 2003)

Under the Sixth VAT Directive (3) as it stands, all Member States must apply the standard rate to rentals and purchases of video cassettes and DVDs. This ensures that taxes on these products are to some degree harmonised throughout the Community (though the standard rate varies between Member States from 15 % to 25 %). Reduced rates are optional for Member States and introducing this option for video cassettes and DVDs would only increase the differences in rates applied across the Community.

3

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates before the summer of 2004. The primary purpose of the proposal will be to improve the functioning of the single market by rationalising the way Member States use reduced rates. The aim is to avoid potential distortions in competition by giving all Member States the same opportunity to apply reduced rates.

In the lead-up to the forthcoming revision of reduced rates, the case for extending their scope will be carefully examined.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 17.

2

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

3

---
# Official Journal C 365/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.365.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 365 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5415 December 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.365.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 365

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5415 December 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 365/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6407 — Apache/Mobil North Sea) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 365/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6328 — Socimac/Bollore/Société d'Exploitation du Terminal de Vridi) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 365/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6225 — Molaris/Commerz Real/RWE/Amprion) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 365/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6407 — Apache/Mobil North Sea) (1)

1

2011/C 365/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6328 — Socimac/Bollore/Société d'Exploitation du Terminal de Vridi) (1)

1

2011/C 365/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6225 — Molaris/Commerz Real/RWE/Amprion) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 365/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2011/C 365/05 | Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the Reinsurance Directive | 4 |
| 2011/C 365/06 | Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the life and non-life insurance directives | 5 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2011/C 365/07 | Special Report No 13/2011 ‘Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?’ | 6 |
| 2011/C 365/08 | Special Report No 15/2011 ‘Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?’ | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 365/04

Euro exchange rates

3

2011/C 365/05

Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the Reinsurance Directive

4

2011/C 365/06

Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the life and non-life insurance directives

5

Court of Auditors

2011/C 365/07

Special Report No 13/2011 ‘Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?’

6

2011/C 365/08

Special Report No 15/2011 ‘Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?’

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 859

- CV IN RE Aaron WILLIAMSON Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 5, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which appears to complain the trial court has failed to ent er an order of nondisclosure in accordance with section 411.081 of the Texas Government Code. See T EX
. G OV
. C ODE A NN
. § 411.081. However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to per form a non

- discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). Relator contends the trial court has informed him the trial court will not grant his petition until he pays the outstanding costs from his underlying criminal charge. However, we have nothing in the record to support relator’s claim. Therefore, relator has failed to provide us with a

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11

- 03

- 15883

- CV, i n the 79 th Judicial District Court , Brooks County, Texas, the Honorable Richard Terrell presiding.04

- 11

- 00859

- CV

- 2

- record showing the trial court has failed or refused to perform a non

- discretionary act. See Molina , 94 S.W.3d at 886; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Based on the foregoing, we c onclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
DENIED. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 11948A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1349

Mr. Theodore W. Tierney

3D Drafting LLC

P.O. Box 1733

Kailua-Kona, HI 96745

Dear Mr. Tierney:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated posted to the public docket on July 22, 2016, you petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 3D Drafting LLC (hereinafter petitioner or 

operator) for an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and 

(c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from Airfoil Enterprises, Inc. to 3D 

Drafting LLC.

1

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 amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

 

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the 

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11948

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, 3D Drafting LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All 

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11948 remain in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-136-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Larry Owens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                        /s/ G. Larry Owens
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        G. Larry Owens
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        November 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29416]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


National Invasive Species Council

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Comment Period Extension--Second Draft of the 
National Invasive Species Management Plan, ``Meeting the Challenge.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Invasive Species Council announced the 
availability of the draft National Management Plan on October 2, 2000, 
for a public review period of 45 days. Pursuant to Executive Order 
13112, this Plan was due in August of this year. In response to a 
number of requests, the Council is extending the comment period for an 
additional 15 calendar days. The new deadline for submitting comments 
will now be 6:00 p.m. (eastern) on Friday, December 1, 2000.
    Availability: Copies of the draft Plan can still be obtained via 
the Council's website: www.invasivespecies.gov; or by contacting the 
Council Staff at 202-208-6336 (phone); 202-208-1526 (Fax); or by e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e6760786f7d67786b7d7e6b6d676b7d4e67617d206a616720696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93fafde5f2e0fae5f6e0e3f6f0faf6e0d3fafce0bdf7fcfabdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Where to Send Comments: Comments can be submitted to the Council 
Staff via regular mail to the address below, via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec85829a8d9f859a899f9c898f85899fac85839fc2888385c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="167f786077657f6073656673757f7365567f79653872797f38717960">[email protected]</span></a>, or by fax to 202-208-1526.

ADDRESSES: National Invasive Species Council, 1951 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Suite 320, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelsey Passe, National Invasive 
Species Council Program Analyst; E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80cbe5ecf3e5f9dfd0e1f3f3e5c0e9eff3aee4efe9aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79cb2bba4b2ae8887b6a4a4b297beb8a4f9b3b8bef9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>; 
Phone: (202) 208-6336; Fax: (202) 208-1526.

    Dated: November 13, 2000.
Lori Williams,
Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council.
[FR Doc. 00-29416 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
An Overview of Infrastructure 

Investing by Property and 

Casualty Insurance Companies

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

May 11, 2017

Dale A. Thatcher

American Insurance Association
0 1.5 3 4.5 6

Commercial Auto

Comml Multi Peril

General Liability

Homeowners

Private Passenger Auto

Workers Comp

Products Liability

Years

Liability Duration by Major Line
0

1.75

3.5

5.25

7

CINF CNA THG HIG SIGI STFC TRV UFCS WRB Avg

Asset Duration

December 31, 2016
21%

24% 31%

14%

10%

Muni Bonds Taxable bonds Equities

Cash Eq Other

P&C Asset Allocation
Summary

• Although strict asset liability matching is not a best 

practice in the P&C industry, relative duration of 

assets and liabilities is not ignored

• Given the relatively short duration of liabilities, the 

illiquidity and long duration of private infrastructure 

investments makes them currently unattractive

• The tax advantaged nature of municipal bonds 

makes them an attractive and traditional method for 

P&C companies to invest in infrastructure
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 25466.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1951.

Harris E. Lofthus, Amarillo, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The conviction is for passing a forged instrument; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

The sole question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

A check for $61.50, purporting to he signed by Mrs. P. R. Roach and drawn upon The Amarillo National Bank and payable to appellant, was presented to Ray Smith, an employee of a grocery store, for payment. After appellant had endorsed the check, Smith gave him the $61.50 in cash.

Smith, testifying for the state, said that he had at a prior time cashed a check for appellant which was signed by a Mrs. Roach, for whom appellant represented he was doing some work. There is no testimony as to the initials of the Mrs. Roach mentioned. Smith testified that he presented the alleged forged check to the bank for payment; whether the check was or was not paid by the bank is not shown. If payment was refused by the bank, there is no such direct testimony.

We have examined Smith’s testimony with meticulous care and nowhere do we find that he testified that the check was not paid by the bank. There is nothing on the check indicating that it was ever presented to the bank for payment; nor is there testimony that Mrs. P. R. Roach, the purported maker of the check, did not have an account at the bank.

The foregoing are the facts upon which this conviction rests.

We are constrained to agree with the appellant that the facts do not warrant the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court
Case 4:22-cv-00482-BP   Document 19-4   Filed 09/16/22    Page 1 of 3   PageID 119

Case 4:22-cv-00482-BP   Document 19-4   Filed 09/16/22    Page 2 of 3   PageID 120

Case 4:22-cv-00482-BP   Document 19-4   Filed 09/16/22    Page 3 of 3   PageID 121