alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress
to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

May 11, 2016

The Honorable Ron Johnson

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC, 20510

Dear Senator Johnson:

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is pleased to submit its fiscal year 2015 report
for Items Manufactured within the United States vs. outside the United States according
to the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a - 10d) and Executive Order 10582. As
prescribed by the Act, the appropriate information has been collected.

The National Council on Disability made no purchases of any articles, materials, or
supplies manufactured outside the United States within the meaning of the Buy American
Act. No waivers were necessary nor granted with respect to such articles, materials, or
supplies under the Buy American Act.

NCD spent $9,835 for goods manufactured in the United States, and $0 for goods
manufactured outside the United States in accordance with Buy American Act
exemptions. Information Technology items are exempt from the Buy American Act and
the funding NCD spent on those items has not been included.

This information is available to the public on NCD’s website (www.ned.gov). If you have
any questions concerning this report, please contact Lisa Grubb, Management Analyst, at
202-272-2113, or by e-mail at lgrubb@ncd.gov

Sincerely,
A
jj 1
Rebecca Cokley

Executive Director

Ce: The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform

1331 F Street, NW m Suite 850 » Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice m 202-272-2074 TTY m 202-272-2022 Fax = www.ncd.gov
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  Commentary March 22, 2021 Commentary: Instructor Reflects on Women's History, Tailhook Scandal Norfolk Naval Base, VA —
                
                In recognition of Women's history Month, we share a commentary written by Lt Col Jennifer E. Kennedy, USAF. Lt Col Kennedy is an instructor in the Joint and Combined Warfighting School, JFSC. Her decision to join the service came amidst the 1992 Tailhook scandal and questionable treatment of women in the military at that time. The following is her testimony to joining the service and her thoughts on the impact of the women who paved the way for her.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 LeCroy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sean B. O’Connor, 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, to my knowledge:

 

 

| (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: November 9, 2006  

 

/s/ Sean B. O’Connor

Sean B. O’Connor 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainTrust and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 25, 2015, by and among DEUTSCHEMORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OFPNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIAITON, as Trustee, and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, asCertificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, DBWF 2015LCM (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuant to Section 11.07 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that: 

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2019. 

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1651

BETTY J. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MECKLENBURG COUNTY; LAVONNE D. JACKSON; BILLY F. JACKSON, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-517-3-MU) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Betty J. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. James Orr Cobb, Jr., RUFF, BOND, COBB, WADE & MCNAIR, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lavonne D. Jackson; Billy F. Jackson, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on May 3, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 9, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Betty J. Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jackson v. Mecklenburg County, No. CA-99-517-3-MU (W.D.N.C. May 9, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of vTv Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen L. Holcombe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of the Company that, to my knowledge: 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: January 16, 2018 

 

|        |                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Stephen L. Holcombe               |
|   | Stephen L. Holcombe                   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
exv10w32



 






Exhibit 10.32




Western Digital Corporation

Summary of Compensation Arrangements

for

Named Executive Officers and Directors




Named Executive Officers



This summary sheet reports current base salaries and certain other compensation of the current
executive officers of Western Digital Corporation (the “Company”) who were named in the Summary
Compensation Table in the Proxy Statement filed by the Company in connection with the Company’s
2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Named Executive Officers”).




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Current Base Salary	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Matthew E. Massengill
	 	$800,000	 	 	 	 
	Chairman and Chief
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Arif Shakeel
	 	$580,000	 	 	 	 
	President and Chief
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Operating Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Stephen D. Milligan
	 	$350,000	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President and
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Raymond M. Bukaty
	 	$350,000	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President,
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Administration, General
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Counsel and Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 





The Named Executive Officers were awarded cash performance bonuses and performance shares on
January 20, 2005, as disclosed in Item 1.01 of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2005, which is incorporated herein by
reference.



The Named Executive Officers are entitled to participate in various Company plans as set forth in
the exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



In addition, the Named Executive Officers may be eligible to receive perquisites and other personal
benefits as disclosed in the Company’s Proxy Statement.




 









 





Directors



The Company’s non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $40,000 in January, or if they
join the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) at a later date, they receive a proportion of
the annual fee corresponding to the period for which they serve. The non-employee directors also
receive compensation of $2,500 for each session during which they attend a Board meeting, $1,500
for any and all committee meetings attended, $1,250 for each Board meeting and $750 for each
committee meeting held by telephone conference, and reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending each meeting. In addition, the chairman of each committee of the
Board receives an annual retainer of $5,000. Mr. Massengill and Mr. Shakeel, who are employees of
the Company, do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board or any Board committee.



The Company’s non-employee directors are entitled to participate in various Company plans as
set forth in the exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 42

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the job opportunities and basic

skills training program (JOBS) should be fully funded.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mrs. KENNELLY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the job opportunities and basic skills training program (JOBS) should

be fully funded.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 job opportunities and basic skills training program

4 (JOBS) should be fully funded.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1310

To prohibit any policy relating to benefits provided to spouses of members

of the Armed Forces that would make such benefits available to homosexual partners of members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1993

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To prohibit any policy relating to benefits provided to

spouses of members of the Armed Forces that would

make such benefits available to homosexual partners of

members of the Armed Forces, 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 ‘‘Military Spouse

5 Benefits Clarification Act’’.
2

•HR 1310 IH

1 SEC. 2. MILITARY SPOUSE BENEFITS NOT TO BE PROVIDED

2 TO HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERS OF MEMBERS

3 OF THE ARMED FORCES.

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—Military spouse benefits may not

5 be provided in the case of a person asserted to be the

6 spouse or partner of a member of the Armed Forces if

7 that person and the member of the Armed Forces are of

8 the same sex.

9 (b) MILITARY SPOUSE BENEFITS DEFINED.—For

10 purposes of this section, the term ‘‘military spouse bene11 fits’’ means benefits provided by the Department of De12 fense (or the Department of Transportation with respect

13 to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service

14 in the Navy) to any person by reason of that person’s

15 status as the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces.

16 SEC. 3. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

17 Any Department of Defense directive or military de18 partment regulation that is applicable to homosexual con19 duct, and any policy under any such directive or regula20 tion, may not be modified to any way sanction or condone

21 homosexual conduct.

22 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON TRAINING SESSIONS.

23 The Secretary of Defense may not conduct or spon24 sor, or require or encourage the attendance of members

25 of the Armed Forces at, any training session, meeting, or

26 program that has the purpose of instructing or training
3

•HR 1310 IH

1 members of the Armed Forces to be more accepting of

2 persons who are homosexuals.

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00050-CV

B. L. M., Appellant

v.

J. H. M., III, Appellee

FROM THE 423RD DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 

NO. 423-021, 

THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant B.L.M. filed her notice of appeal on January 29, 2014. The appellate 

record was complete February 5, 2014, making appellant’s brief due February 25, 2014. On 

February 21, 2014, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this 

Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion in part and 

order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than March 12, 2014. If the brief is not filed by 

that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on February 25, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose.
Exhibit 99.10

                   [LETTERHEAD OF REZNICK FEDDER & SILVERMAN]

To the Board of Directors
SBM Certificate Company

We understand the SBM Certificate Company ("company") has decided to change its
method of accounting for the certificate reserve liability carried on the
balance sheet.

Face-amount certificates issued by the Company entitle certificate holders, who
have made either single or installment payments, to receive a definite sum of
money at maturity. The certificate liability accrues interest, and cash
surrender values are less than the accumulated certificate liability prior to
maturity dates. The certificate liability accumulation rates, cash surrender
values, certificate liability and certificate reserves, among other matters, are
governed by the 1940 Act.

Prior to the acquisition of the Company by Geneva Capital Partners, LLC, on
December 5, 2003 ("the 2003 Acquisition"), the Company had adopted a methodology
for calculating the certificate liability, whereby the certificate liability is
carried at the certificate's surrender value. This accounting policy was adopted
by the Company following it's acquisition by State Bond on July 19, 2000 ("the
Original Acquisition") and it resulted in a reduction of the certificate
liability, net of tax, of $1,259,530 at the Original Acquisition. This amount
was reflected as an adjustment to the accumulated deficit of shareholder's
equity in the year ended 2000 financial statements.

Following the 2003 Acquisition, management of the Company adopted the
methodology for calculating the certificate liability whereby the certificate
liability is carried at the account value less an estimate for early surrender
charges based on the Company's history with regard to early surrenders.

Both of these methods are in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.

We agree with the Company that this is a change to a preferable method of
accounting.


/s/ Reznick Fedder & Silverman

Bethesda, Maryland
January 23, 2004
#### BISHOP v. STATE.

No. 21056.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

John C. Ratliff, of Big Spring, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property over the value of $50, and under the further allegation and proof of the commission of two other felonies less than capital he was sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record. The statement of facts shows that he was convicted of theft of property over the value of $50 in cause No. 8560, in the district court of Eastland County, Texas, on a plea of guilty on June 13, 1931. That again in cause No. 3024, in the district court of Stephens County, Texas, on April 11, 1934, he was convicted on his plea of guilty to felony theft and sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the penitentiary. Upon a conviction herein by' the jury, he was sentenced to a life term in the penitentiary as an habitual criminal.

The case being one of circumstantial evidence, we note the court’s charge thereon was full and complete. Appellant was found in possession of the stolen copper wire, with certain tools showing both equipment and ability to possess himself of such wire, which was being used for transmission of electric power. It was also shown that an effort had been made to conceal such wire by burning the insulation off same.

We are of the opinion that the facts proven were sufficient to support the verdict of guilt upon the part of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WANDA L. COBB, §

Plaintiff, §

vs. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1867-B-BH

§

FRANK KENDALL, Secretary, §

Department of the Air Force, §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court. 

The pro se plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Non-Taxable Cost, filed September 22,

2022 (doc. 16), is DENIED without prejudice as premature. 

SIGNED this 12 day of October , 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01867-B-BH Document 26 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 308