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

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E95]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      TRIBUTE TO KEVIN E. QUINLAN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY

                               of nevada

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 15, 2009

  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Stop DUI 
Caucus, I rise today in tribute to one of the Nation's top traffic 
safety officials, who has passed away suddenly.
  Kevin E. Quinlan was the Chief of the Safety Advocacy Division of the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Mr. Quinlan was with the 
Safety Board for nearly 20 years, serving as the Alcohol and Drug 
Program Coordinator and Chief of the Safety Recommendations Division. 
He was instrumental in promoting State action on Safety Board 
recommendations to reduce fatalities, injuries, and crashes in all 
modes of transportation. Mr. Quinlan authored five major studies for 
the Board. Prior to his work with the NTSB, Mr. Quinlan served in the 
U.S. Army for 29 years, receiving the Legion of Merit and Meritorious 
Service Medal. He has an undergraduate degree from Boston University 
and graduate degrees from William and Mary, the U.S. Army Command and 
General Staff College, and the U.S. Air Force Air War College.
  Mr. Quinlan loved to travel and was skiing in Vermont when he 
suffered a fatal heart attack. He was well-respected and admired by 
everyone in the traffic safety community. He was a mentor to countless 
traffic safety advocates and an inspiration to the thousands of people 
who lost loved ones to the preventable crime of drunk driving. One of 
his greatest passions was the fight to stop drunk driving. His expert 
testimony led to the passage of many effective countermeasures across 
this Nation. His work has saved countless lives and I ask that my 
colleagues join me in honoring him today.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W. Green, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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/    JAMES W.
GREEN                                              
|Date: October 4, 2011 |  | James W. Green                                                     
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for August 2012
1.Cases Pending Beginning of Month 31
2.Cases Added to Docket 

Briones Utility Company
No. 10-1372
Direction for Review on 8/20/12 
1
3.Cases Subtracted From Docket

American Engineering & Development Corp.
No. 10-0359
Decision on 8/27/12

Deep South Crane & Rigging Co.
No. 09-0240
Decision on 8/27/12

Shaw Global Energy Services, Inc. 
No. 09-0555
Decision on 8/27/12

Elliot Construction Corp.
No. 07-1578
Decision on 8/28/12

-44.Total Cases Pending End of Month28
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                     As Adopted Pursuant to
                     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended April 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David
Dutton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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.

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.



|Date: May 17, 2006 | /s/ David Dutton
                     David DuttonChief Executive Officer
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60008

Summary Calendar

LIRIDON BEKTESHI

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 475 791

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Liridon Bekteshi petitions this courtfor review ofthe decision ofthe Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) order

denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60008

2

When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and essentially

adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

Bekteshi argues that the IJ’s determination that his expert witness’s

testimony was not credible is in error because the inconsistencies relied on by

the IJ did not exist and, therefore, cannot provide the basis for an adverse

credibility determination. Bekteshi has not demonstrated that the record

compels a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ and therefore has not provided a

basis for this court to replace the IJ’s determinations concerning credibility or

ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with its own

determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Review of the record reveals that the IJ’s determination that Bekteshi

failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to asylum is supported by substantial

evidence. The burden of proof for withholding of removal is a higher standard

than asylum. Failure to satisfy the less demanding asylum standard is, a

fortiori, a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Id. at

906. The Convention Against Torture does not require persecution; it requires

that an applicant prove that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured

if removed. Id. at 906-07. Bekteshi has not demonstrated that he is entitled to

relief on these alternative grounds.

The petition for review is therefore DENIED.
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 Amended Annual Report of Wireless Age Communications,
Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies 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 his
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 operation of the Company.

/s/ John G. Simmonds
----------------------
John G. Simmonds
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer of the Registrant)

Dated: April 29, 2005

/s/ Gary Hokkanen
--------------------
Gary Hokkanen
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the Registrant)

Dated: April 29, 2005
ACCEPTED 03-15-00068-CR 7956064 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/23/2015 3:55:55 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

KARL STAHMANN Appellant CauseNo. 03-15-00068-CR INTHE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS



## v. § § § § § § 03-15-00068-CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLANT'S MOTIONFOREXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'SBRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW APPELLANT, KARL STAHMANN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, requests an extension of time to file appellant's brief. In support of this motion, Appellant submits the following: 

### I. The deadline for filing Appellant's BriefWAs October 30,2015. T.R.A.P. 4.1(a). II. Appellant requests an extension ofsixty (60) days in which to file his Appellant's Brief. T.R.A.P. 68.2(c).

Page 1of3

### III. Undersigned counsel was not substituted as attorney ofrecord until November 11, 2015.

PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, undersigned counsel prays for this Court to extendthe time for filing Appellant'sbriefas sixtydays from November 11, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,

estern Trails Blvd, Suite 1 02-A Austin, Texas 78745 Tel: 512-804-5911 Email: Deniz@KadirhanLaw.com ATTORNEY FORAPPELLANT

Page 2 of3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthis Motion was provided to the State Prosecuting Attorney onNovember23, 2015, 

### via fax at (830) 608-2008.

Page 3 of3
#### West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Charlotte E. Warren.

1. *Verdict—When*Conclusive.—Where the evidence is conflicting the verdict is conclusive.

Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 22, 1896.

*102Statement of the Case.

This is an action by Charlotte E. Warren to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the West Chicago Street Railway Company. It appears from the record that on Sunday, July 19, 1891, the plaintiff, together with her niece, Mrs. Wyckoff, took passage on one of the defendant’s Van Burén street cars, near Ashland avenue, and rode eastward until the car approached Fifth avenue, when she says she signaled the conductor to let her off. The plaintiff claims that her niece had left the car, and she herself was in the act of stepping off when the car started suddenly, and she was thrown to the ground, thereby sustaining a fracture of the thigh bone. •

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff stepped off the car before it had stopped and while it was going round the curve from Van Burén street to Fifth avenue.

On the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,000. The plaintiff subsequently remitted $4,000, and judgment was entered against the defendant for $5,000. .

The defendant appeals.

Egbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.

Edward Maher and Charles C. Gilbert, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in dispute in this case was one of fact; the defendant had, testifying in favor of its view of the way the accident happened, the greater number of. witnesses, and it claims a very great preponderance of the evidence.

The testimony was conflicting, and of such a nature that we do not feel justified in reversing the finding of the jury, sanctioned, as it has been, by the trial judge.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Exhibit

















Fluor Corporation    
6700 Las Colinas Boulevard    
Irving, Texas 75039
USA


469.398.7000 tel
469.398.7254 fax




November 26, 2019


Alan L. Boeckmann
6700 Las Colinas Blvd
Irving, Texas 75039


Dear Alan, 


It is my pleasure to inform you that the Board of Directors has approved a special retention award for you, which has been structured as follows:


Award Amount:            $1,750,000 USD total cash award


Retention Period:        November 26, 2019 through November 26, 2022


Retention Agreement:      The entire award (less applicable withholding) will be earned and 
payable if you remain continuously employed through 
November 26, 2022.


You will earn your retention award (a) if you remain continuously employed by the Company as stated above or (b) if your employment terminates prior to the above date due to (i) death, (ii) permanent and total disability, (iii) a Company-initiated termination other than on a for-cause basis, or (iv) a Qualifying Termination (as such term is defined in that certain Change in Control Agreement between you and the Company dated May 1, 2019). In the event your employment terminates prior to the date above for any reason other than stated above (including, without limitation, your voluntary termination or a termination for cause), then the retention award will be forfeited.  


It is intended that the provisions of this Agreement comply with Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and with the exclusion from Section 409A deferred compensation for so-called short-term deferrals, and all provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements for avoiding taxes and penalties under Section 409A.




Please indicate your acknowledgment of the terms of the letter by signing in the space provided and returning the letter to Executive Compensation for your employee records (email: executive.compensation@fluor.com). You should also retain a copy for your file. 


Sincerely,


	
	
	/s/ Carlos M. Hernandez

	Carlos M. Hernandez








Agreed:
	
		
	/s/ Alan L. Boeckmann
	12/2/2019

	Alan L. Boeckmann
	Date






cc: Stacy Dillow, Karen Roberts




1
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton

IZELA E. PAZ

v. Record No. 1970-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM McDONALD'S STORE #01638 JANUARY 14, 1997 AND AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Eric S. Wiener, on brief), for appellant. (Edward H. Grove, III; Brault, Palmer, Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims, on brief), for appellees.

Izela E. Paz (claimant) contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that she failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule

5A:27. "To prove the 'arising out of' element, [in a case involving injuries sustained from falling down stairs at work,] claimant must show that a condition of the workplace either caused or contributed to her fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v.

Shell , 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 County of Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1989)). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour , 8 Va. App. 482, 483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a matter of law, that her employment caused her injury, the commission's finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co. , 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). Although claimant was in the course of her employment when her injury occurred, her evidence did not show that any defect in the stairs, the presence of any foreign substance on the stairs, or any condition peculiar to her workplace caused her to fall down the steps and injure herself. Although claimant and her witness testified that there was grease and water on employer's kitchen floor, no evidence showed that claimant had grease or water on her shoes when she fell or that claimant had any problems walking through the kitchen before she descended the stairs. Moreover, employer's witness testified that she examined the stairs immediately following claimant's fall and did not observe any grease, water, or foreign substance on the floor or stairs. Because no evidence showed a causal connection between the conditions of claimant's employment and her fall, we are unable to find that she proved as a matter of law that her injury arose out of her employment.3 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed.
OSMRE NEPA HANDBOOK 1 JULY 2019

APPENDIX 6.3 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER AN 

EA OR EIS IS MORE BENEFICIAL

To determine if an EA or EIS would be more beneficial to the decision-maker, the decisionmaker should consider the following:

● Whether two or more CEs are needed to cover the entire project because one CE should 

easily cover the entire proposed action. For example, if one CE covers the main project 

and a different CE covers a connected action, the potential for environmental impacts is 

increased.

● Whether the project that may be covered by the CE has the potential for measurable 

environmental impact.

● Whether mitigation is required to avoid the potential for environmental impacts. Only 

minimal mitigation should be part of an action categorically excluded, and the 

effectiveness and enforcement of the mitigation must carry a high degree of certainty.

● If a local, state, or federal agency with jurisdiction by law over an affected resource 

believes the potential for measurable environmental impact exists for an action that

OSMRE initially intends to categorically exclude from further analysis, you must prepare 

an EA or an EIS.

● If the action involves “unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321),” alternatives to the proposed action must be 

developed and studied. If an OSMRE action described on the list (516 DM 13.4(A)) does 

involve such conflicts, you must prepare an EA or an EIS.

● The definition of categorically excluded actions includes those actions that cumulatively 

do not have the potential for measurable impact on the human environment. If the action 

is a part of a broader action, or one in a series of similar or related actions, the broader 

policy, program, or proposal must be the subject of a NEPA analysis first. Elements of 

the action may subsequently be analyzed more specifically using the tiering approach.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. SHERMAN addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1208 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1208

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2017

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 9155 Schaefer Road, Converse, Texas, as the ``Converse Veterans Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVERSE VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9155 Schaefer Road, Converse, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Converse Veterans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Converse 
Veterans Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```