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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2071 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2071

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
   higher education from denying students admission on the basis of 
                 immigration or naturalization status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

  Mr. Veasey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
   higher education from denying students admission on the basis of 
                 immigration or naturalization status.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Dream Promise Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DENIAL OF ADMISSION DUE TO IMMIGRATION OR 
              NATURALIZATION STATUS.

    Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30) The institution will not deny a student admission at 
        such institution on the basis of the student's immigration or 
        naturalization status.''.
                                 <all>
```
AFS-10-406-E 

Oct 14 2010 

 Exemption No. 8794B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26039 

Captain Lyle Hogg 

Vice President, Flight Operations 

US Airways, Inc. 

4000 East Sky Harbor Boulevard 

Phoenix, AZ 85034 

Dear Captain Hogg: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8794, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 21, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), for an extension of Exemption No. 8794, 

as amended. That exemption from § 121.434 (c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations allows US Airways to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or 

aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command 

(PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424 during at least one 

flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to US Airways. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8794, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8794, as amended, to October 

31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8794, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8794. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
# C_2005031EN.01001901.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/19

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 November 2004

in Case T-168/02: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(5) - No disclosure of a document from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

(2005/C 31/37)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-168/02: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, formerly Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster, S. Terstal, N. Bel and C. Wissels, with an address for service in Luxembourg), the Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and the Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: initially J. Bering Liisberg, and subsequently J. Molde, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by R. Caudwell, acting as Agent, and M. Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 March 2002 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents, relating to the declassification of a protected site, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

1

---
AFS-13-244-E

March 22, 2013

 Exemption No. 7897F

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12728

Mr. Douglas Carr

Vice President

National Business Aviation Association, Inc.

1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Carr:

This letter is to inform you that we have extended Exemption No. 7897, as amended. It 

explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On September 27, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Exemption 

No. 7897, as amended to National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA). That 

exemption from §§ 91.409(e) and 91.501(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) allows NBAA to operate small civil airplanes and helicopters of United States registry 

under the operation rules of §§ 91.503 through 91.535 and to select an inspection program as 

described in § 91.409(f). 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7897, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.
2

Conditions and Limitations

1. Only those operations that are listed in § 91.501(b)(1) through (7) and (9) may be 

conducted under the authority of this exemption. Those operations must be 

conducted in compliance with the operating rules in §§ 91.503 through 91.535. 

However, helicopter operations are not required to comply with the flight altitude 

rules of § 91.515(a), provided the operations comply with the minimum safe 

altitude requirements in § 91.119. Aircraft operated under the authority of this 

exemption must use an inspection program listed in § 91.409(f).

2. No person may operate an aircraft under this exemption unless the appropriate 

Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) has been -

a. Notified that the operation will be conducted under the terms of this 

exemption; and

b. Provided with a copy of the time-sharing, interchange, or joint ownership 

agreement under which each aircraft is being operated, if appropriate. Each 

agreement must include the aircraft registration number of each aircraft 

involved.

3. No person may operate an aircraft under this exemption unless an entry is made in 

the aircraft logbook showing the provisions of part 91, subpart F, under which it is 

being operated.

4. No person may operate an aircraft under the authority of this exemption unless an 

inspection program has been submitted to and approved by the appropriate FSDO.
3

5. This exemption does not authorize the conduct of any operation required to be 

conducted under the rules of part 135.

6. This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7897, as amended, to 

March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

9 Nqyember 2015 

; -r I,rt•• • 

• 'Y • • .1.32e, 

Weather Section, Deputy for 

Satellite Operations 

NRO Staff 

CNC: Lt Colonel Louis A. Snyder 

Backup: Major Paul V. Fraser 

Captain Milton D. Forsyth 

Duty Subjects: 

The Weather Section, Deputy for Satellite Operations ,-(6) NRO Staff, 

provides meteorological support for Satellite Operations Center activities; maintains liaison between-t#NRO Staff and Air Weather Service organizations; and 

advises thei* NRO Staff on general meteorological matters. 

Action Items: 

1. Provides support for Satellite Operations Center activities. 

a. Establishes message formats and orocedures to be used in 

requesting and receiving Global Weather Central products used in 

operational activities . 

b. Coordinates with in establishing weather transmission 

schedules to assure that the best possible weather product will be received on a 

timely basis consistent with operational requirements. 

e. Obtains cloud cover forecasts for target areas. Forecasts 

provided by are translated into briefing aids to assist the Deputy for 

Satellite Operations in making camera operation decisions. 

d. Obtains state-of-the-grotmd information for target areas 

(principally snow cover data). 

e. For the time and location of camera operations . blots the 

estimated cloud coverage prevailing, based on data obtained from 

This pre-recovery estimate of successful photographic coverage is used to 

aid in making subsequent camera operation decisions during a mission. 

PAGE___C:',..2 _PA 13P3 

-OP SECRET 
. 

Plndie via BYEMAN 

entail System 

Cis SECRET, NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

9 No,vember 2015 

f. Provides with post-recovery analysis of photography with respect to cloud cover. The analyses are used to verify 

formal", point out forecasting errors and leading to imprommest 

11,11

. 

2. Maintains liaison between the** NRO Staff and Air Weather 

Service °nominations. 

3. Assists in determining bow to satisfy weather support requirements in support of thefit+NRP. When advised of newly*proposed operational 

concepts and/or systems , anticipates changes in support reqUireemente so as to 

insure the availability of timely and accurate meteorological support. 

4. Provides general meteorological information. climatological 

data, mission weather summaries, briefing aids. etc.. for technical studies 

prepared by the-(8) NRO Staff. 

in future 

COPY_.vv,—.0F__3_CO7IEE 

PAGE_II:2_CT_a__FACES 

-7----72 9-‘
CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ending July 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|By | /s/ Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Arthur L. Smith         | 
|   | President and           | 
|   | Chief Executive Officer | 
|   | November 15, 2012       |
# L_2015199EN.01002101.xml

| 29.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/21

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1297

of 28 July 2015

entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling (TSG))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Traditional Bramley Apple Pie Filling’ (TSG) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 2015.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 80, 7.3.2015, p. 27.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
m-is

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-01128-CR

STYLE: Ezekiel Joshua Hall v The State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: January 22. 2015 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Poss of a Firearm by Felon

COUNTY: Harris

TRIAL COURT: 228th District Court

TC CASE #:1396361

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Ezekiel Joshua Hall v The State of Texas

CCA #

APPZLLA/ZT^ Petition CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

K>4-/5-

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: /Qpril /&~ ZL&/ST

JUDGE: /*<=

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEAR

JUDGE:

ING IN CCA IS:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
,...Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112130 

' ,r 

1 TOP SECRET ) 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 14 00048223D 

(OMTiltOI. SYt.flll 

__.J.Sf'NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

//2t11?-l,- 1 u 

November 5, 1969 /c.' /}R~A-J1 

HANDlt VU, 

Dear Dick: 

Thank you for your comments on the NASA earth-sensing 

activity guidelines memorandun;i. Since you say that you have no 

substantive problems with the paper, I propose to distribute it 

to the addressees. 

You raise two valid points and I would like to comment on 

them. 

a. You point out that perhaps the NSAM 156 Committee should 

review my proposal. I believe that my proposal for revised guidelines is in accord with the recommendation of that Committee and I 

do not feel that a meeting is necessary now. A Committee meeting 

will probably be required when NASA proposes actual development 

of systems yielding better than 20 meters ground resolution and 

they may do so shortly after their review of the MOL-developed 

tracking telescope. For the time being, NASA can study such possible systems for performance to 5 meters within guidelines. Our 

concern in this area relates primarily to NASA's earth resources 

program and a possible political confrontation if the program becomes provocative. The security policy guidelines provided by you 

and the NSAM 156 Committee seem adequate at present and I will 

operate accordingly. 

b. You also express concern about NASA releasing data on 

orbital astronomical instruments which may reveal the quality of 

our reconnaissance systems. Although I propose to recognize 

NASA astronomical experiments as non-provocative to other nations, 

CONTROL NO BYE 

COPY a2A BYEMAN TOP SECRET o• 

UClUDH VROM AUTOMATIC REGIIADIMG PAGC 1 OF 

13350-69 

COP1(S 

2 PAGU,.,.----- CONTROL SUHM OOD DtHCTIVt 9200.10 DOU NOT A,rLY C)j/ - () <'.' -.;_. 0 (j '\ .) 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112130 
HANDL[ YI" 

,-..Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112130 1 11.ir ~tbHLI ' 

I realize that we must also insure protection of critical technology. 

The SACC will have the continuing responsibility to review NASA 

orbital astronomy projects and identify those aspects which cause 

this type of concern. The SACC will develop security protection 

recommendations after a NASA experiment has been defined and 

before hardware procurement is authorized. The first case in 

point may be a NASA proposal to use some optical technology 

derived from the DORIAN telescope of MOL. I will monitor closely 

their study of this idea and keep you and the other members of the 

ExCom informed of developments. 

Sincerely, 

.i...t~ ........ ....._,,/ 

McLucas 

MlNOlt: Vlill 

BYEMAN 

CONTOOlHO BYE 13350-69 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET UClUOED VAOM •UTOMATIC REGRADING 

OOD OIR[CTIYl SI00.10 DOU NOT .,,lY 

co,v ___ o, ___ co,in 

,AH 2 or 2 ,AGU COMTIIIOl S'fSTCM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112130
*December 3, 1935.*

#### Schenkenberg, Respondent, vs. Builders & Manufacturers Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Rouiller, Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Vilas PI. Whaley*of Racine.

*By 'the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1
$ 153,521,000 7.15% Asset Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1999




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-1999           0     509,764     318,805    4.00%    7,064,616    7.38%
 Feb-1999   8,880,140     509,764     276,385    3.57%    6,940,001    7.47%
 Mar-1999           0     509,764     256,633    3.42%    5,607,225    6.22%
 Apr-1999           0     445,795     281,730    3.91%    4,523,933    5.23%
 May-1999  10,736,066     445,795     222,438    3.29%    3,663,848    4.52%
 Jun-1999           0     445,795     (13,079)  -0.20%    3,743,598    4.81%
 Jul-1999           0     400,565     173,300    2.76%    4,192,366    5.57%
 Aug-1999   7,590,958     400,565     250,197    4.13%    3,751,212    5.16%
 Sep-1999           0     400,565     142,578    2.37%    4,099,007    5.68%
 Oct-1999           0     370,081     151,956    2.60%    3,758,538    5.36%
 Nov-1999   5,116,275     370,081     184,260    3.24%    5,468,190    8.01%
 Dec-1999           0     370,081     291,520    5.28%    4,208,936    6.36%
          ____________ ___________ ___________
   Totals  32,323,438   5,178,616   2,536,724

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-24-00489-CV

Jose FLORES,

Appellant

v.

Sergio BERNAL,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CVK001079D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE VALENZUELA, AND JUSTICE 

BRISSETTE

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED August 28, 2024.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
AMENDMENT TO TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.
NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Amendment Optionee TeleTech
  WHEREAS Agreement 2005 Stock Options
 WHEREAS Review
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
 Grant of Option Plan Option Shares Common Stock US$7.79 Option
Price
 FURTHER RESOLVED
 1




---



##### 



FURTHER RESOLVED
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ John R. Troka, Jr.Name:
    John R. Troka, Jr.Title:
    Senior Vice President and Interim Chief
Financial OfficerOPTIONEEBy:
    /s/ James E. BarlettName:
    James E. Barlett 2