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

**Teleconference**

**March 29, 2018**

**Washington, DC**

**ATTENDANCE**

**Members						Staff**

Neil Romano, Chairman				Lisa Grubb, Acting Executive Director

Billy Altom 	  					Joan Durocher 

James Brett						Anne Sommers

Daniel Gade						Phoebe Ball	

Wendy Harbour					Amy Nicholas

Benro Ogunyipe					Amged Soliman

Clyde Terry				          		Ana Torres-Davis

				          			Keith Woods				                     					          		Stacey Brown

**NCD Contractor**

Anthony Simpson

**Guests**

Kim, AUCD; Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, National Federation of the Blind

**Welcome and Introductions**

Chairman Neil Romano called the meeting to order at 11:00 AM (ET) and welcomed Council members, staff and the public.

1. **Attendance and Roll Call**

Chairman Neil Romano, Billy Altom, Rabia Belt, James Brett, Daniel Gade, Andres Gallegos, Wendy Harbour, Benro Ogunyipe, Clyde Terry

1. **Acceptance of the Agenda**

**MOTION:**  Mr. Billy Altom moved to accept the agenda of the March 29 teleconference. 

**SECONDED:**Jim Brett

Roll Call Vote:

Chairman Neil Romano: Aye			

Mr. Billy Altom: Aye

Mr. Daniel Gade:  Aye

Ms. Wendy Harbour: Aye

Mr. Benro Ogunyipe:  Aye				

Mr. Clyde Terry:  Aye

Motion passed unanimously

1. **Discussion of Policy Project Proposals, to conclude with a vote of the Council regarding funding allocations and priorities**

Chairman Romano stated the reason for conducting this special meeting was to allow the Chair and staff time to review and consider policy recommendations.  The executive committee met and unanimously approved the policy, personnel and operational recommendations and requirements presented for consideration. Chairman Romano facilitated a review of the policy priorities for fiscal year 2018. The Tech Bill of Rights was tabled for consideration in fiscal year 2019. 

· Foreign policy

· Immigration

· 14C

· Guardianship

· Institutionalization

· Bioethics

· Autonomous vehicles

· Centralized Accommodation Funds

· Opioid Crisis

The following Personnel and Operational Priorities and Recommendations were distributed for review and approval in fiscal year 2018 prior to the meeting.

· Website

· Department of Interior

· Intranet / Cybersecurity

· Staff Promotions

· Council Member Salary and Travel modifications to spend plan

**MOTION:**  Mr. Jim Brett moved to accept the proposals as discussed and modified. 

**SECONDED:**Wendy Harbour

Roll Call Vote:

Chairman Neil Romano: Aye			

Mr. Billy Altom: Aye

Mr. Daniel Gade:  Aye

Ms. Wendy Harbour: Aye

Mr. Benro Ogunyipe:  Aye				

Mr. Clyde Terry:  Aye

Motion passed unanimously

1. **ADJOURNMENT**

**MOTION:**Mr. Jim Brett moved to adjourn the teleconference.

**SECONDED:**Wendy Harbour

Roll Call Vote:

Chairman Neil Romano			

Mr. Billy Altom: Aye

Mr. Bob Brown:  Aye

Mr. Daniel Gade:  Aye

Ms. Wendy Harbour: Aye

Mr. Benro Ogunyipe:  Aye				

Mr. Clyde Terry: Aye

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Date Approved by the Council: May 10, 2018

Signature 

Neil Romano

Printed Name

2 of 3

# image1.jpeg
Southwest Georgia Regional Airport 

December 8, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: ABY FAA Fuel Tax Revenue Action Plan (Commercial Service Airport) 

Office of Compliance: 

The Southwest Georgia Regional Airport (SWGA) is a publically owned and operated 

commercial-service airport in Albany, Georgia. The airport is a department ofthe City of Albany 

and is not financially self-sufficient. For our current fiscal year, which runs July 1, 2015 through 

June 30, 2016, we will receive $716,309 in contributions from the City of Albany's general fund. 

At the current rate of sales tax that is generated by sales of aviation fuel we would have to sell 

more than 23.8 million gallons of aviation fuel per year to equal the contributions we currently 

receive. Our Action Plan is to monitor the annual fuel sales and appropriate sales tax rates. If we 

ever approach fuel sales that would exceed the monetary contributions that we receive from the 

local taxing authorities, we will develop a more detailed Action Plan. 

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns at dhamilton@albany.ga.us 

David Hamilton 

Transportation Director 

Southwest Georgia Regional Airport I 3905 Newton Road, Suite 100 I Albany, Georgia 31701 

Phone (229) 430-5175 I www.FlyABY.com
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 212V

( E

- Filed: A p ri l 16, 2014 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CAYLEE HARRINGTON, a married * UNPUBLISHED

woman, *

* Order Concluding Proceedings; More

Petitioner, * Than One Petition for Same Vaccine

* Admninistration

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On January 17, 2014, petitioner filed a petition in case number 14

- 43V, alleging

that the second H PV vaccine administered on January 19, 2011

, caused her to develop a

number of symptoms including constant severe numbness, pain and tingling in her legs,

and arms, numbness in her torso, numbness in her face, trouble chewing food and

swallowing, memo ry loss, nausea, and vomiting. On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a

substantially similar petition in case number 14

- 212V, which is the instant case, alleging

1 Because t his unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case, the undersigned intend s to post this Order on the United States Court of Federal

Claims ’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)).

In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to

delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B).

Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must includ e a

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agree s that the identified

material fits within the r equirements of that provision, the undersigned will delete such

material from public access.that the Ga r dasil vaccine that she received on January 19, 2011, caused her to suffer a

vaccine

- related injury with a similar constellation of symptoms alleged in the first filed

petition.

Under the Vaccine Act, “Only one petition may be filed with respect to each

administration of a vaccine.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 11(b)(2) (2012). The undersigned

DISMISSES this petition for being in violation of the Vaccine Act’s prohibition of filing

more than one petition with respect to the same vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Proceedings are concluded in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master

2
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------



                            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 SITEL Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E.
Stevenson, Jr., Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/  James E. Stevenson, Jr.
--------------------------------
James E. Stevenson, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2002
#### HARRELL v. STATE.

No. 21006.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for the theft of an automobile over the value of fifty dollars; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

Elmer Howell, the prosecuting witness, testified that he lived at Hermleigh in Scurry County, Texas; that on June 2, 1939, he went to Sweetwater, Texas, and parked his 1936 Model Ford V-8 pickup, License No. 104,545, on the street early in the evening and when he started to go home about ten o’clock, the car was gone. He reported the matter to the city police department. On the following day, the car was recovered in the city of Abilene.

Two State Highway Patrolmen testified that on the night of June 2, 1939, they received information from the Sweetwater Police Department relative to the theft of a certain automobile and were on the lookout for it. About three miles west of Abilene the officers stopped a car which proved to be the one wanted. The appellant was driving it at the time and was accompanied by his companion Homer Collins. Upon being advised by the officers that the car was reported as stolen, neither the appellant nor his companion gave any explanation for their possession of it. They were then arrested by the officers and taken to Abilene and later delivered to the officers from Sweetwater.

The appellant did not testify upon the trial and did not offer any evidence in his behalf. He was not represented by counsel but undertook to conduct his own case.

No bills of exception appear in the record, but with the assistance of counsel, appellant prepared and presented a motion for new trial, which cannot be considered for the reason that it is not sworn to as required by statute. See Vernon’s Ann. Tex.C.C.P., Vol. 3, Art. 756, p. 63, note 11, and cases there cited. Furthermore, the allegations in the motion are controverted by the motion of counsel for the State, and the decision of the trial judge must prevail in the absence of a showing of an abuse of his discretion.

No error having been reflected by the record before us, the judgment is affirmed.
#### SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al. v. HOWTH.

No. 3239.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Nov. 29, 1939.

For opinion on merits, see 133 S.W.2d 253.

J. P. Adoue, of Houston, Orgain, Carroll & Bell and Melvin Combs, all of Beaumont, Cain & Wheat, of Liberty, Stevens & Stevens and R. H. Whilden, all of Houston, Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, W. K. Koerner, and C. P. Berry, all of St. Louis, Mo., and A. E. Groff, of Houston, for appellants.

W. D. Gordon, Howth, Adams & Hart, and Gaston H. Wilder, Jr., all of Beaumont, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This was an action by appellee, C. W. Howth as plaintiff, against the following named parties as defendants: Shell Petrol-ettm Corporation, Ford Clevenger, Mary J. Gregory, E. P. Gregory, Billie E. Bourgeois, Sarah Blevins and husband, R. E. Blevins, Sam Gregory, Ruth Wills and husband, P. D. Wills, I. L. Gregory, R. A. Gregory, O. H. Noland, C. O. Wier, Hazel King and husband, Leroy King, Annie Reed and husband, J. L. Reed, and Susie B. Summers. The judgment of the lower court was in all things affirmed except as against Shell Petroleum- Corporation, Billie Bourgeois and I. L. (Ike) Gregory; as to these defendants the judgment of the lower court was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.. In his motion to re-tax costs; plaintiff Howth makes the point that 8/13ths of the costs should be taxed against those defendants who lost their appeal; and that the remaining 5/13ths of the costs should be taxed l/4th against him and 3/4ths against Shell Petroleum Corporation, O. H. Noland and C. O. Wier. The motion is overruled. All costs incurred by Shell Petroleum Corporation, Billie Bourgeois and I. L. Gregory, on appeal.are taxed against plaintiff Howth; all costs ln-ciirred by the defendants who lost their appeal are taxed against them. All items of costs not specifically taxed in the transcript against named parties shall be apportioned on the following basis: (a) Costs of the trial court; 8/13ths against the defendants who lost their appeal, 5/13ths against plaintiff Howth; (b) All costs of the appellate court actually paid by the defendants who won their appeal, to be taxed against plaintiff Howth — all other costs of the appeal to be taxed 8/13ths against the defendants who lost their appeal and 5/13ths against plaintiff Howth.
(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.
 Date: November 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William C. StoneWilliam C. StoneChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Patrick J. PedontiPatrick J. PedontiSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1061

To extend until January 1, 1995, the existing suspension of duty on

thiothiamine hydrochloride, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. ROSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To extend until January 1, 1995, the existing suspension

of duty on thiothiamine hydrochloride, 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. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF

4 DUTY ON THIOTHIAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.30.91 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/94’’.

8 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—The article descrip9 tion for heading 9902.30.91 of the Harmonized Tariff

10 Schedule of the United States is amended—
2

•HR 1061 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(CAS No. 2443–50–7)’’ be2 fore ‘‘(provided’’; and

3 (2) by striking ‘‘2934.10.10’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘2934.10.50’’.

5 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

7 (b), the amendment made by section 1(a) applies with re8 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

9 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

10 the enactment of this Act.

11 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec12 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

13 of law to the contrary, upon a request filed with the appro14 priate customs officer before the 90th day after the date

15 of the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal from

16 warehouse for consumption of goods to which the amend17 ment made by section 1(a) applies and that was made—

18 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

19 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en20 actment of this Act;

21 and with respect to which there would have been a lower

22 duty if the amendment made by section 1(a) had applied

23 to such entry or withdrawal, shall be liquidated or

24 reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal had oc25 curred on such 15th day.
3

•HR 1061 IH

Æ
AMENDMENT NO. 1, DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, TO THE AGREEMENT,
dated December 10, 1997, by and between Ixion Biotechnology, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, as Warrant Agent (the
"Warrant Agent").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

            WHEREAS, in connection with the offering to the public of up to
400,000 Units (the "Units"), each Unit consisting of one share of Common Stock
(as defined in Section 1) and 0.25 charitable benefit common stock purchase
warrants (the "Charitable Benefit Warrants"), each whole warrant entitling the
holder thereof to purchase one additional share of Common Stock; and

            WHEREAS,  pursuant to Section 1(h) of the Warrant  Agreement,  the
Company  desires to reduce the Exercise  Price from $20.00 per share to $8.00
per share effective on the date hereof; and

            WHEREAS, the Company desires to increase the number of shares
issuable upon the exercise of Charitable Benefit Warrants by a factor of 2.5;
and

            WHEREAS, no further Charitable Benefit Warrants will be sold after
the date of this Amendment No. 1;

            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
agreements hereinafter set forth and for the purpose of defining the terms and
provisions of the Charitable Benefit Warrants and the certificates representing
the Charitable Benefit Warrants and the respective rights and obligations
thereunder of the Company, the holders of certificates representing the
Charitable Benefit Warrants, and the Warrant Agent, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

            1. Section 1(h) of the Warrant Agreement is amended to read as
follows:

                                    (h) "Exercise Price" means, subject to
                        modification and adjustment as provided in Section 8,
                        $8.00, and further subject to the Company's right, in
                        its sole discretion, to decrease the Exercise Price for
                        a period of not less than 30 days on not less than 30
                        days' prior written notice to the Registered Holders."

            2. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which taken
together shall constitute a single document.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed as of the date first above written.

Dated: September 30, 1999

                                    IXION BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.



                                    By:________/S/________________
                                    Printed Name: Weaver H. Gaines
(SEAL)                              Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Attest:

By:________/S/___________________
Printed Name: Gwenyth E. Thompson
Title: Assistant Secretary

                                     SUNTRUST BANK, ATLANTA
                                     As Warrant Agent



                                     By:_____________________________________

                                     Printed Name:____________________________

                                     Title:____________________________________
#### ZAMORA et al. v. GARZA.

No. 10307.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 18, 1938.

*161Kennedy Smith, of Raymondville, and F. G. Garza, of Falfurrias, for appellants.

Crane & Glarner, of Raymondville, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

Pablo Garza was on June 6, 1936, administrator of the estate of one Romulo Garza, deceased, and on that date secured an order of the probate court of Willacy County allowing him a salary of $100.00 per month as extra compensation for extra services performed and to be performed by him.

On July 12, 1936, Pablo Garza died without having been paid this extra compensation, and Carmen Garza was appointed administrator of his estate.

On December 10, 1936, Carmen Garza, as administrator of the estate of Pablo Garza, presented to Porferio Garza, the new administrator of the estate of Romulo Garza, deceased, a claim for said salary and extra compensation, amounting to $2,-290.48.

Thereafter, on January 4, 1937, Pablo Garza Zamora and the other appellants herein, filed in the county court their protests and objections to the claim above described.

On January 9, 1937, the protest was disallowed and the claim of appellee, Carmen Garza, administrator, was approved by the county court, notice of appeal was given, and what purported to be an appeal bond was filed.

On July 9, 1937, the District Court of Willacy County entered an order dismissing this attempted appeal from the order allowing the claim for the sum of $2290.48. From this order of dismissal the present appeal is prosecuted.

We are met at the threshold of this appeal by the fact that the bond given for the appeal from the county court to the district court was not signed by any surety while the statute, Art. 3699, R.C.S.192S, requires two or more sureties to such a bond. The purported bond was not an appeal bond, and the district court, therefore, did not acquire jurisdiction of the cause. Warne v. Jackson, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 242; . Logan v. Gay, 99 Tex. 603, 90 S.W. 861, 92 S.W. 255; International-Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W. 886; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mercantile Co., Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W. 270.

It is true that the trial judge dismissed this cause for another and different reason, but it makes no difference whether the reason given is a good one or not, so long as the record shows upon its face that there existed a good reason for the action taken by the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered October 19, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree to criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the People failed to adduce sufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find it legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The identifying witness, an employee of the complainant, had several opportunities to clearly view the defendant as he exited the burglarized premises and during the ensuing chase.

A police officer’s testimony that the defendant was identified by this witness at a curb-side confirmatory showup shortly after his apprehension was admissible pursuant to CPL 60.25, since the witness was unable to identify the defendant at the trial *(see, People v Nival,*33 NY2d 391; *People v Hernandez,*154 AD2d 197; *People v Brown,*144 AD2d 373).

*634However, we agree with the defendant’s contention that the People failed to present sufficient evidence that the damage to the premises exceeded the statutorily required $1,500. The proof of damages consisted merely of the testimony of the complainant owner and his employee that the repairs had cost approximately $2,500, and was unsupported by documentation or other evidence that that amount represented the reasonable cost of the repairs *(see, People v Gina,*137 AD2d 555; *People v Gaines,*136 AD2d 731). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree is reduced to criminal mischief in the fourth degree. However, the matter need not be remitted for resentencing on that count since the defendant has already served the maximum permissible sentence for that crime.

In light of the defendant’s prior criminal record, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion with respect to the sentence for burglary in the third degree *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.