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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1321 

To expand benefits to the families of public safety officers who suffer fatal 

climate-related injuries sustained in the line of duty and proximately 

resulting in death. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, Ms. AYOTTE, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To expand benefits to the families of public safety officers 

who suffer fatal climate-related injuries sustained in the 

line of duty and proximately resulting in death. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for Fallen 

5 Officers Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1321 IS

1 SEC. 2. BENEFITS FOR FAMILIES OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFI2 CERS WHO SUFFER FATAL CLIMATE-RE3 LATED INJURIES. 

4 Section 1201 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

5 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘or climate8 related injury (as defined in subsection (l))’’ after 

9 ‘‘personal injury’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (k)— 

11 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

12 by striking ‘‘or vascular rupture’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘vascular rupture, or climate-related injury’’; 

14 (B) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ‘‘ex15 posure to extreme environmental conditions,’’ 

16 after ‘‘disaster relief,’’; 

17 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or vas18 cular rupture’’ and inserting ‘‘vascular rupture, 

19 or climate-related injury’’; 

20 (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or vas21 cular rupture’’ and inserting ‘‘vascular rupture, 

22 or climate-related injury’’; and 

23 (E) in the flush text following paragraph 

24 (3), by striking ‘‘or vascular rupture’’ and in25 serting ‘‘vascular rupture, or climate-related in26 jury’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1321 IS

1 (3) by amending subsection (l) to read as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(l) For purposes of subsection (k)— 

4 ‘‘(1) the term ‘climate-related injury’ means an 

5 injury that is caused by an environmental condition 

6 experienced by an officer, including hypothermia, 

7 heatstroke, and hyperthermia; and 

8 ‘‘(2) the term ‘nonroutine stressful or strenuous 

9 physical’ excludes actions of a clerical, administra10 tive, or nonmanual nature.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (#1203), Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC), University of Pennsylvania Site Visit.                    

*Dates & Times:*                         April 19, 2015; 7:15 p.m.-9:00 p.m.                    

April 20, 2015; 7:15 a.m.-8:30 p.m.

April 21, 2015; 7:15 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

*Place:*                         University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.                    

*Type Of Meeting:*                         Part open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Daniele Finotello, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4676.                    

*Purpose Of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning further support of the MRSEC at Northwestern University.                    

## Agenda

### Sunday, April 19, 2015

7:15 p.m.-9:00 p.m. Closed—Briefing of panel

### Monday, April 20, 2015

7:15 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Open—Review of the MRSEC

5:00 p.m.-6:45 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

6:45 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Open—Dinner

### Tuesday, April 21, 2015

7:15 a.m.-9:50 a.m. Closed—Executive Session

9:50 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session, Draft and Review Report

*Reason for Closing:*                         The work being reviewed during this site visit may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the MRSEC. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 11, 2015.

Suzanne Plimpton,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-03174 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary fianacial information extracted from
unaudited and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         762,649
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,088,352
<PP&E>                                       7,311,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                 916,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,885,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,590,183
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       209,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,024,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,885,907
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,896
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,036,423
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,993,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,993,527)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,993,527)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131107 & (27) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 131107 COA: 265441 Wayne CC: 96-004881-01 MICHAEL WINBUSH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
LufARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
: SAMOS PROJECT OFFICE
Alr Force Unit Post Office, Los Angeles 45, Calfornia

“SAPP-X/LtCol Phelpe/3575

Security Guidance of An Unclassified Mature Relating to SAMOS

All SAFSP and LEX Personnel

1. There has been some misunderstanding as to the general classification
of SAMOS information. ‘To alleviate some of the misconceptions, I have
attached to this memorandum the SAMOS Fact Sheet that is used in Public
Affairs Plan for SAMOS Satellites.

2. ‘The only unclassified informtion available on the Purpose of SAMOS
is:

sang, SANOS Project is a Research ant Development Program to determine
the capabilities for making observations of Space, the atmosphere and
the globe from a satellite.”

This definition of the Purpose of SAMOS will be used for all unclassified
Giscussions; and will also be used wherever ‘Possible, in classified
brie: .
Amendment No. 2 to Capital Support Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as
of the 29th day of September 2008, by and between the Northern Trust Corporation (the “Support Provider”) and Northern Trust Global Funds
plc (the “Company”) on behalf of its sub-fund The Sterling Fund (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a
Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008 and amended the Agreement on July 15, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Support Provider wishes to increase the level of capital support provided to the Fund; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties
desire to further amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to
be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 1(e) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth
below: 
 (e) “Maximum Contribution Amount” means twenty five million pounds sterling (£25,000,000). The
Maximum Contribution Amount may be increased at any time as agreed by the Trust and the Support Provider. 
 3. Section 3(a) of the
Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 
 (a) If a Contribution Event occurs prior to
the occurrence of a Termination Event (defined below), the Support Provider will make a Capital Contribution to the Fund in the amount equal to the least of (i) the Loss incurred as a result of Contribution Event; or (ii) the Maximum
Contribution Amount reduced by the amount of any Capital Contribution previously made by the Support Provider to the Fund. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Capital Support Agreement to be
executed as of the date specified above. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	50 South LaSalle Street
	Chicago
	Illinois 60675
	United States of America
	
	NORTHERN TRUST GLOBAL FUNDS PLC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE STERLING FUND
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John Fitzpatrick

	Name:	 	John Fitzpatrick
	Title:	 	Director
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	George’s Court
	54-62 Townsend Street
	Dublin 2
	Ireland
#### International Textbook Company, Appellant, vs. Peterson, Respondent.

*May 2, 1911.*

*Foreign corporations: Correspondence schools: Contracts: Right to do business in this state: Interstate commerce.*

Teaching by the correspondence method, whe.re the teacher resides in one state and the student in another, constitutes interstate commerce, and hence cannot he affected by the provisions of sec. 17705, Stats. (1898). *International T. Co. v. Peterson,*183 Wis. 302, reversed.

*120Per Curiam.

This is an action by a Pennsylvania corporation to recover from a citizen of Wisconsin the contract price of tuition in its correspondence school. The tidal court decided that there could he no recovery because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of sec. 17706, Stats. (1898). This judgment was affirmed by this court upon ap,peal *(International T. Co. v.*Peterson, 133 Wis. 302, 113 N. W. 730), it being held that instruction by correspondence did not constitute interstate commerce. The case having been taken to the supreme court of the United States by writ of error, that court has held *(International T. Co. v.*Peterson, 218 U. S. 664) that teaching by the correspondence method, where the teacher resides in one state and the scholar in another, constitutes interstate commerce, and hence cannot be affected by the provisions of sec. 17706. In accordance with that holding the judgment of this court was reversed, and the cause remanded for such further proceedings as are required by the opinion.

The mandate of the United States supreme court having now been received by the clerk of this court, upon motion of the attorneys for the appellant:

*It is ordered and adjudged*that the said mandate be filed and entered in this court, and that pursuant to the command thereof the judgment entered in this court in said action on the 5th day of November, 1907, affirming the judgment of the circuit court for Manitowoc county herein be and the same is in all things vacated and set aside; and

*It is further ordered and adjudged*that the judgment of the said circuit court for Manitowoc county appealed from be and the same is hereby reversed with costs; and that this action be remanded to said trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs.
• NAQ R•PPROVED FOR 

'RELEASE• 1 JULY 2015 

FACT SHEET 

MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY (MOL) PROGRAM 

Chronology 

On December 10, 1963, the Secretary of Defense announced the 

assignment of a space station development program to the Air Force to 

determine the usefulness of man in space for defense purposes. He 

identified it as a "manned orbiting laboratory." Both.in-house and 

industry studies were undertaken on various concepts and design proposals for the MOL. 

)9(0-5. 

The program was broadened in January, 1-9'66, to include development 

of technology to improve the capabilities for manned and unmanned experimentation. Requests for Proposals .(RFP8) were issued for design 

studies to assist in developing cost and technical information required 

to proceed with full scale development of the MOL. 

Four contractors were selected in March, 1965, to perform preliminary design studies for the MOL vehicle. 

The Air Force presented a program proposal to the Secretary of 

Defense who later recommended approval to the President, after discussions .- 

with the Vice President and members of the Space Council. The President 

instructed DOD to proceed with the program on August 25. 

The Air Force selected Douglas Aircraft .Company to design and build 

the laboratory in which'the men will live and work. General Electric. 

Company was selected to work on the task of experiment integration. 

On August 31, the Secretary,of the Air Force designated General 

Bernard A. Schriever as Director of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

Program--in addition to his duties as Commander, Air Force Systems Command. 

Brigadier General Harry L. Evans was named Vice Director of .the program, 

and Brigadier General Russell A. Berg was assigned as Deputy Program 

Director in charge of the MOL Systems Office located in Los Angeles, Calif. 

The first eight out of a planned total of 20 aerospace research pilots 

were assigned to the program-on November 12, 1965.' 

Program Plan 

The primary objectives of the MOL program are to: 

- Learn more about what manila able to do in space and how that 

ability ..zelates to. the defense of he nation. 

.- Develop technology and e ipment which will help manned and 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JpLY 2015 

unmanned space flight, and- to experiment with this technology and equipment. 

The MOL aerospace research pilots will be launched into space inside 

a modified Gemini spacecraft by a Titan III booster. Once in orbit, they 

will enter the laboratory attached to the spacecraft through a hatch in 

the heat shield. 

The laboratory will be/designed to allow them to work in a "shirtsleeve" environment--that is, without space suits--for up to 30 days. 

For return to earth they will go back into the Gemini spacecraft, detach 

the laboratory and re-enter the atmosphere for an ocean landing and pickup. 

The initial unmanned launch of a fully-equipped MOL is scheduled for 

1968. This will be followed- later that year by the first of five flights

, 

• 1 with two-man crews. 

NOVEMBER 1965 •
*January 10, 1928.*

#### Pecore, Respondent, vs. Quinn, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the, circuit court for Barron county dated June 6, 1927: W. R. Foley, Judge.

Action on contract. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *G. P. Gannon*of Rice Lake and *Dayton E. Cook*of Chippewa Falls.

For the respondent: /. *W. Soderberg*of Barron.

*By the Court.*— 'Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT
 32.2

Certificate of Principal Financial Officer

pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report), I, George E. Mazzotta, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CNET Networks, 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 Section 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 CNET Networks.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 29, 2007                             
|                                                    
|/s/    George E. Mazzotta George E. Mazzotta        
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and
will be retained by CNET Networks. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 W"\ 

11 September 1964 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Interface with MOL and MOL Contractors 

1. Let IBM accomplish their pre-Phase I IVS study under MOL 

supervision. 

2. Make no connection between IBM and EK at this time, since it 

is a limited pre-Phase I (Phase 0) study of only 90 days duration. 

a. EK does not vitally need the data from IBM in view of the LMSC 

work already done. Much of the IBM work will probably be concerning 

acquisition performance data needed more by the system operation 

planners than system designers to establish acquisition times, operational modes, etc. 

b. The IBM data at the end of their task will be quite useful 

and can be passed to EK at that time. 

c. There are advantages to allowing IBM to proceed through 

this pre-Phase I study on their own to obtain a separate approach 

to the IVS problem. 

3. The initial approach of clearing the top AF and Aerospace MOL 

personnel (Brady and Leonard) provides a way to get data out of the 

IBM or other MOL work into SP. However, it should be realized 

that this is not a first hand approach with the data usually being in 

the form of reports resulting in delays. Also, it.is difficult to get 

SP in-puts into IBM or other MOL efforts, since these people 

usually do not personally accomplish the TD. For SP ideas to 

receive attention, they should be presented to the actual TD leaders. 

4. In view of the comments above, it has become apparent that 

some additional clearances at the working level are desirable. On 

the AF side of MOL, this has been accomplished with the clearing 

of Lt Colonel Regnier and the processing of Major Wallace. For 

Aerospace personnel, there are at least three possible approaches 

as indicated below. 

a. Clear several working level MOL people now. These could 

possibly be "Special Handling" briefings, but not project named. 2 

That is, a halfway briefing, which would say that SP is interested 

from an advanced planning viewpoint in manned operations; 

therefore, SP has an interest in the data and procedures as they 

develop in MOL. 

MAR 1980 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

b. Clear no MOL people but clear several Technical Division 

Support people who work full time in support of MOL. 

c. Clear no MOL people or full time support personnel, but 

establish the interface with the working level MOL personnel 

through the Advanced Systems Office headed by Phil Diamond under 

John Aseltine. This could be done by clearing Diamond and placing 

a member of the Aerospace SP group in his organization. He would 

still belong to John Travis, but his announced job in the "white" 

would be to keep the Advanced Systems Office abreast of all MOL 

developments and progress, and in turn to assure that the MOL 

office has full benefit of the talents in the Advanced Systems Office. 

Meanwhile in the "black" he would function as the active link between 

SP and MOL on the Aerospace side of the house. 

YRON F. KNOL E, JR. 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

2
# 52S-I5 ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 04-14-00344-CR CHRISTOPHER ALAN LEMASTER V. THE STATE 

## STYLE: oftexas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 

## OFFENSE: SEXUAL ASSUALT COUNTY: BEXAR TRIAL COURT: 186th DISTRICT COURT DATE: 04/08/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2013CR2869



## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS ELECTRONIC RECORD CHRISTOPHER ALAN LEMASTER V. THE ST STYLE: TEXAS ATE OF
Petition CCA IS: 

# CCA# Sa$mK> APPELLANT*** FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEWIN 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

# DATE: oql/lfjOf 

# JUDGE: $m(!uU^— SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHE/ JUDGE\RING IN CCA IS:
oe

7067/5 Dec
6 Dec 58

sty adhe

AFCIN«1A/ Cot

1958

+ em bee

6 Dec

sont:
trom your eilles regarding wrotyvam-

is made to the memevenduss,
SENTRY dated 10 Novesubar 1958

representatives
SENTRY.

f ut

lll
Ha

1. Refevense
Requizemente for

parse yeti
mines


a3

4
5

Hl

i

3

i

“ti
fil

%

i
li

Cy
File Cy

cy
File
AFCINGLA Read

AFCIN-LA

AC8/1 File
#### Danischefsky, Respondent, vs. Klein-Watson Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Fish, Mar shuts & Hoffman,*attorneys, and *I. A. Fish*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur B. Doe*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on April 11, 1933.