alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended; 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/      Larry Hargrave                    |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Larry      Hargrave                        |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer |
| June      23, 2008                         |

----
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3394 

AN ACT 

To amend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to 

allow for the use of certain assets of foreign persons 

and entities to satisfy certain judgments against terrorist 

parties, 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, 
2 

•HR 3394 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clarifying Amendment 

3 to Provide Terrorism Victims Equity Act’’ or the ‘‘CAP4 TIVE Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. USE OF BLOCKED ASSETS TO SATISFY JUDGMENTS 

6 OF U.S. PERSONS AGAINST TERRORIST PAR7 TIES. 

8 Section 201(d) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 

9 of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

11 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

12 (A), by striking ‘‘means’’; 

13 (B) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read 

14 as follows: 

15 ‘‘(A) means any asset seized or frozen by 

16 the United States under section 5(b) of the 

17 Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 

18 5(b)), under sections 202 and 203 of the Inter19 national Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

20 U.S.C. 1701; 1702), or under section 805(b) of 

21 the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act 

22 (21 U.S.C. 1904(b)); and’’; 

23 (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para24 graph (5); and 

25 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol26 lowing: 
3 

•HR 3394 EH

1 ‘‘(4) PERSON.—In subsection (a), the term 

2 ‘person’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) a natural person who, at the time the 

4 act of terrorism described in subsection (a) was 

5 committed upon which the judgment described 

6 in such subsection was obtained by that person, 

7 was either— 

8 ‘‘(i) a national of the United States as 

9 defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immi10 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

11 1101(a)(22)); 

12 ‘‘(ii) a member of the Armed Forces 

13 of the United States; or 

14 ‘‘(iii) otherwise an employee of the 

15 Government of the United States, or of an 

16 individual performing a contract awarded 

17 by the United States Government, acting 

18 within the scope of the employee’s employ19 ment; or 

20 ‘‘(B) if the person described in subpara21 graph (A) is deceased, the personal representa22 tive of the estate of that deceased person.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

24 The amendments made by this Act apply to any judg25 ment described in section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk 
4 

•HR 3394 EH

1 Insurance Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note) that is en2 tered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this 

3 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3394 

AN ACT 

To amend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 

purposes. ments against terrorist parties, and for other eign persons and entities to satisfy certain judg2002 to allow for the use of certain assets of for-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             542
<SECURITIES>                                       185
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                       513
<INVENTORY>                                      8,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,714
<PP&E>                                          54,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,401
<BONDS>                                         22,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,866
<COMMON>                                         3,101
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,420
<SALES>                                        156,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,490
<CGS>                                          119,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    174
<INCOME-TAX>                                       136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       316
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
##### 



EL PASO CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 For the Three Months ended March 31,2006
    
    

2007EarningsPre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations
    
    $
    425
    
    
    $
    (67
    )Minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1Income from equity investees
    
    
    (29
    )
    
    
    (37
    )Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations before
adjustment for minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries
and (income) loss from equity investees
    
    
    396
    
    
    
    (103
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    368
    
    
    
    310Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    74Capitalized interest
    
    
    (10
    )
    
    
    (12
    )Preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1
    )Total earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    792
    
    
    $
    268Fixed chargesInterest and debt expense
    
    $
    365
    
    
    $
    305Interest component of rent
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    4Preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1Total fixed charges
    
    $
    368
    
    
    $
    310Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)
    
    
    2.15
    
    
    
    Fixed chargesInterest and debt expense
    
    $
    365
    
    
    $
    305Interest component of rent
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    4Preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1Preferred stock dividend of parent
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    9Total fixed charges
    
    $
    382
    
    
    $
    319Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (2)
    
    
    2.07
    
    
    
    
 
 (1)
    
    Earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 were
inadequate to cover fixed charges by $42 million.(2)
    
    Earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 were
inadequate to cover fixed charges and preferred stock dividends by $51 million.  -
    
    minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries;-
    
    income or loss from equity investees, adjusted to reflect actual distributions from equity investments; and-
    
    fixed charges;
  -
    
    capitalized interest; and-
    
    preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries.
  -
    
    interest costs, not including interest on FIN No. 48 liabilities which is included in income tax
expense on our income statement;-
    
    amortization of debt costs;-
    
    that portion of rental expense which we believe represents an interest factor; and-
    
    preferred stock dividends and preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00832- CR
Al e x G ar c ia, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT OF SAN SABA COUNTY NO. 6,856, HO NORAB LE BY RON TH EODO SIS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
On Fe bruar

y 21, 2003, appellant Ale x Gar cia plea ded guilty and wa s co n v i ct ed by the cour t of driving while his license wa s suspended. Pursuant to a plea bar g ain, Gar cia wa s se nte nc e d to te n d ay s in j a il a nd a $1 00 fi ne , b ut i mpo sit ion of se nte nc e wa s su sp e nd e d a nd Ga rc ia
wa s p la c e d o n p ro batio n. As pa rt of the ba rg a in, Ga rc ia wa ive d h is r ig ht o f a

pp e a l. On Dec ember

20, 2004, the county

court re voked probat i o n an d imposed sentence fo llo wi nga

he ari ngon

the State ’s mot ion . G arc ia fi led his no tic e of

a pp e a l th e same da

y . T his Court was first notified of t he appeal on De cembe r 28, 2005, whe n the cler k’s re cord w as re ceive d. On J anuar

y 10, 2006, the Court rec eived a supplemental cle rk’s re cord c ontaining the trial court’ s c e rt if ic a tio n s tatin g that this is a ple a -b arg a in ca se and Ga rc ia ha s n o r ig ht o f a

pp e a l and that G arc ia waived the rig ht of appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(d).2 I f a defe ndant plea barg ains for probation, the rig ht to a ppeal the c onviction is li mited by rule 25.2(a )(2)
. Fe ag in v . S tate , 967 S.W .2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (applying prede cessor

rule). B ut rule 25.2(a )(2) does not apply to an appeal from an orde r re voking pr obation. Id . Even if a

defe ndant plea ba

rg ains for pr obation, an appe al from a n order revokingthat probation is n ot a ple a-ba rg a in c a se . T hu s, wh ile the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c e rt if ic a tio n w ou ld h ave be e n c or re c t if Gar cia h ad s o u g ht to appeal his orig inal conviction, the plea barg ain and wa iver of a

ppeal do not limit Gar cia’ s rig ht of appe al from the r evocation order.

For these re asons, the trial court’s cer tification of Ga

rcia ’s rig ht of appe al is incorre ct and ther efor e def

ective. S e e D e a r s v . S ta te , 1 5 4 S.W .3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The
a pp e a l is a bate d so the c ounty c ourt c an pr e pa re a c or re c te d c e rt if

ic a tio n o f a

pp e a l st a tin g that th is is not a plea-ba

rg ain ca se and the defe ndant has the r ight of appea l. A supplemental c lerk’s r ecor d containingthe cor

rec ted ce rtification shall be te ndere d for f iling no later

than Fe bruar

y 24, 2006.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Filed: F ebrua

ry 14, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 13.1



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of
Amira Nature Foods Ltd (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2014 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|              | AMIRA NATURE FOODS LTD
|------------- | ----------------------
|              |                       
|July 28, 2014 | By:                   
|              |                       
|              |                       
|              |                       
|              |                       
|July 28, 2014 | By:                   
|              |                       
|              |                       
|              |
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 11-802 Date: OCTOBER 18, 2011

Subject: The Federal Flexible Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS): 

 2012 Administrative Fees

Purpose 

To notify agencies that the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS) reserve account fee 

will change for the 2012 benefit period.

Background 

Administrative Fees 

Agencies pay administrative fees to SHPS, Inc. (the third party administrator under contract with the 

Office of Personnel Management) on behalf of their employees enrolled in FSAFEDS. 

Dependent-Care Flexible Spending Account (DCFSA) Administrative Fee 

No change. The current DCFSA administrative fee remains unchanged at $3.25 per DCFSA per 

month. 

Health-Care Flexible Spending Account (HCFSA) Administrative Fee 

No change. The current HCFSA administrative fee remains unchanged at $4.35 per HCFSA per 

month. 

Reserve Account Fee 

Agencies pay the reserve account fee to OPM on behalf of their employees enrolled in FSAFEDS. For 

2012, the monthly reserve fee will be reduced from $4.50 to $1.00 per HCFSA per month. This reduction 

will result in a significant savings for each participating agency’s budget. 

SHPS, Inc. will send out the first of two annual invoice packages in February 2012, reflecting the above 

fees. Thank you in advance for your prompt payment. 

Sincerely, 

John O’Brien

Director 

Health and Insurance
#### Ex parte NEWTON.

No. 17470.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1935.

Jno. M. Hatter, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The relator is under indictment for the offense of robbery in which, according to the *626averment, firearms were used by bim. In his application for bail, by way of habeas corpus, in the district court, the following averment and prayer are found:

> “Relator shows to the court that he is not guilty of any offense, and that he is entitled to be released from such confinement, but if not released, then he is entitled to have a reasonable bond set; that he is practically without means; that he has no influential relatives or friends possessing sufficient property to make a large bond, and is therefore entitled to have a reasonable bond set in said cause, if not released herein.

> “Wherefore, relator prays that a writ of habeas corpus forthwith issue, and that upon hearing he be discharged, or in the alternative a reasonable bond set.”

Thereupon the court granted a hearing by way of habeas corpus.

The offense of robbery with firearms is a capital offense. Article 1408, P. C. 1925.

It is declared in the Constitution (article 1, § 11) that prisoners shall be allowed bail except in capital cases, where the “proof is evident.” Denial of bail without evidence in a capital case is wrong. However, in the present instance, the accused was allowed bail. It is true that no evidence was introduced by the state except the .indictment; nor was there any evidence introduced by the appellant. The dilemma in which this court finds itself is that 'there is no measure by way of evidence or- otherwise upon which it can determine that the bail fixed is excessive. Among the precedents upon the subject are Ex parte Bice, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 484, 289 S. W. 43; Ex parte Garland, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 565, 24 S.W.(2d) 434, 435. Prom the latter case, we take the following quotation: “It has been declared on many, occasions that ordinarily on appeal an application for the reduction [of bail] will be refused, in the absence of some proof that the bond was too high. See Ex parte Thompson, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 243 S. W. 910; Ex parte Atkinson, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 243 S. W. 910; Ex parte McDaniel, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 258 S. W. 1057.”

Rules for fixing the amount of bail are found in Article 281, C. C. P. 1925, of which subdivision 3 reads as follows: “The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.”

In Tex. Jur., vol. 5, pp. 819-821, the subject is discussed and precedents cited.

So far as we are able to judge, the record in the present case offends against none of the, provisions mentioned for the reason that the relator was admitted to bail. He presents no evidence showing or tending to show that the bail allowed him was excessive.

The relief sought is denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

      ( print page 80275)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 374 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-730, K2024-23.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22671 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Disaboom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Walpuck, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ John
Walpuck


Principal
Executive Officer


and
Principal Financial Officer








Dated:
November 23, 2009
#### Ex parte HUNT.

No. 14155.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1931.

Francis M. Chaney and G. deGraffenried, both of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Relator presents an original application for writ of habeas corpus to this court, contending that he is entitled to bail. The question arises upon the construction of the new statute upon murder, the form of the indictment in the present prosecution, the effect of submitting the case to the jury upon a count of the indictment which omitted the averment that the killing was upon malice aforethought, and the" abandonment of a good count charging murder upon malice aforethought.

Tersely stated, relator contends that he was in jeopardy on the count of the indictment which did allege a killing upon malice aforethought, and that upon another trial he cannot be assessed a punishment of more than five years in the penitentiary; hence that he is entitled to bail as a matter of law.

It will be seen that relator is seeking by habeas corpus proceedings to have this court pass upon the question of former jeopardy which may or may not be pleaded in the lower court upon another trial. It has been held consistently that a habeas corpus proceeding cannot be the basis for such action. Ex parte Crofford, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 547, 47 S. W. 533; Ex parte Mitchum, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 62, 237 S. W. 936; Ex parte Spanell, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 212 S. W. 172, in which many cases are cited.

 That the plea of jeopardy is a personal privilege and can be waived by accused is well established. Corpus Juris, vol. 16, § 489; Dunn v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 242 S. W. 1049. If relator does not waive'the plea, it will be available to him when again placed on trial, and he can then invoke a ruling of the trial court thereon; if the ruling is unfavorable to him (which we can not assume will be the case), he may present it upon appeal to this court. Ex parte Mitchum, supra.

The writ is denied.