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

Calendar No. 86 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1357 

To extend authority relating to roving surveillance, access to business records, 

and individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers under the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 until July 31, 2015, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

MAY 18, 2015 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To extend authority relating to roving surveillance, access 

to business records, and individual terrorists as agents 

of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 until July 31, 2015, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1357 PCS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOR2 EIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 

3 1978. 

4 (a) ROVING SURVEILLANCE AND ACCESS TO BUSI5 NESS RECORDS.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PA6 TRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 

7 (50 U.S.C. 1805 note) is amended by striking ‘‘June 1, 

8 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘July 31, 2015’’. 

9 (b) INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOR10 EIGN POWERS.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence 

11 Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 

12 1801 note) is amended by striking ‘‘June 1, 2015’’ and 

13 inserting ‘‘July 31, 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 86 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1357 

A BILL 

To extend authority relating to roving surveillance, 

July 31, 2015, and for other purposes. eign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 until ists as agents of foreign powers under the Foraccess to business records, and individual terrorMAY 18, 2015 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1141/2006

of 27 July 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 July 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 27 July 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                            LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary                           Place of Incorporation
------------------                           ----------------------
<S>                                          <C>
Twin Laboratories Inc.                       Utah
Twin Laboratories (U.K.) Ltd.                United Kingdom
Changes International (U.K.) Ltd.            United Kingdom
Changes, A Twinlab Company S. de R.L.        Mexico
Bronson Laboratories, Inc.                   Delaware
Health Factors International, Inc.           Delaware
Twinlab Mail Order, Inc.                     California
Twinlab Direct, Inc.                         Florida
</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Duane Poliquin, Chief Executive Officer of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 28, 2008





Signed:  /s/Duane Poliquin
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 RANDLE VIA BYEMAN SYSTEM ONLY 

_57-P 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD February 21, 1967 

Reference is made to the MOL Monthly Management 

Meeting on February 15, 1967 and to the attached memo. 

Having reviewed the attached memo, I concur with the 

action items as stated except that I am uncertain that Items d. 

and h. were that precisely stated during the meeting and further 

I believe that we may have to readjust the figures downward 

from $286 million in FY 1967 and $510 million in FY 1968. 

ARRY6L. EVANS 

Major General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

1 Atch 

a/s 

Copy to: 

Colonel Randall 

BYE-21399/67 

11

r~Eij~ iii 

DORIAN 

iiitti5LE VIA BYEMAN SYSTEM ONLY 

Page 1 of 1 page 

Copy 1 of 5 copies 

SAF—SL 1144111111111111WL 

EXCLUDED FRO 13'31EGRADINif 41 

DOD DIR 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE f JULY 2015 

1 6 FEB 1967 

SAFSL-4 

MEMORANDUM FOR GEN EVANS 

SUBJECT: Action Items from the Monthly Management Meeting, 15 Feb 67 

The following confirms directions or guidance given the SPO at 

the 15 Feb 67 MOL Monthly Management Meeting: 

a. We are to forego further consideration of the T-III LDC 

application to the present MOL program. 

b. We are to continue with plans for competing the seven segment 

SRMs. Upon presentation of results of the five segment competition to 

Dr. Flax on 15 March, a decision on competition of seven segments will 

be made. 

c. We are authorized to proceed with the Gemini B Pad Abort Control 

System. 

d. We are to immediately direct the contractors to take action at 

necessary to stay within the $286M FY 67 approved funding. 

e. A program slip of at least 9 months was approved as a first 

effort towards reducing the FY 68 funding impact. Flight #3 will 

continue to be flown with PPAC compatibility model. 

f. T-III SPO is to seek the assistance of Hq AFSC in expediting 

the approval of the Martin Marietta contract for T-IIIM boosters. 

g. We are authorized to proceed with all testing plans with the 

exception of: 

(1) The construction of Acoustical Testing Facility at PPAC; 

and 

(2) Testing of Mission Module at qual levels. 

BYE-66253/67 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

EXCIAIDEj-) 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1' JULY 2015 'SEGEL coco' —'

71 

h. The MOL associates were advised to bend their buildup curve 

down to phase into a 510 million FY 68 funding. 

i. The requirement for an Orbital Escape briefing in Washington 

D.C. will be determined by Gen Evans. 

j. The requirement for an Aircraft Simulat iefing to be 

given to Dr. Flax will be determined by Gen 

Colo USAF 

Deputy Director, MOL 

2 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          This Amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of October 2, 2008 to the Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 2, 2007, originally effective November 9,
2005, between Novavax, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) having its principal office at
9920 Belward Campus Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 and Raymond Hage, an individual (“Executive”).




Background




          Executive is employed as Senior Vice President of Commercial Operations of Company, and is
responsible for the functions and duties assigned to this position, and Company wishes to assure
itself of the services of Executive. Executive and the Company are therefore amending the
Agreement to extend the Term. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set
forth in the Agreement.




Terms




          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and obligations
hereinafter set forth, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows:




          1. Term. The Term of the Agreement is hereby amended to continue for one (1)
additional year and will expire on September 1, 2009.




          2. Other Provisions. All of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement, not
inconsistent with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement the date and year first
written above.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NOVAVAX, INC. 	 
	[SEAL]	  	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Rahul Singhvi
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Rahul Singhvi 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Raymond Hage
 	 
	 	 	Raymond Hage 	 
	 	 	 
	 




1
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1402 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for Humanity 

Program to be transferable. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2015 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents 

for Humanity Program to be transferable. 

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 ‘‘Patents for Humanity 

5 Program Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFI7 CATES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A holder of an acceleration certifi9 cate issued pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Pro10 gram (established in the notice entitled ‘‘Humanitarian 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1402 IS

1 Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 

2 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the 

3 United States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer 

4 (including by sale) the entitlement to such acceleration 

5 certificate to another person. 

6 (b) REQUIREMENT.—An acceleration certificate 

7 transferred under subsection (a) shall be subject to any 

8 other applicable limitations under the notice entitled ‘‘Hu9 manitarian Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. 

10 Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor thereto. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6383** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS GARRETT WATSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00327

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Garrett Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Garret t Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court prop erly found it lacked the authority to reduce Watson’s sixty

- month sentence, which was the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court reviews de novo the district court’s “conclusio n on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v. United States , __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690

– 92 (2010) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, but rather permits a sentence reduction within the na rrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission)
. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Watson , No. 1:05

– cr – 00327

- NCT

– 1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2012). Further, we deny Watson’s motion for the appointme nt of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
---

---

# Exhibit 10

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-114489, 333-9508, 333-6032,
333-7260, 333-9136) pertaining to the Israel Stock Option Plan and the United States Stock
Option Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
of our report dated January 29, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. and subsidiaries included in theAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

|                 |                                   
|---------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel Aviv, Israel | /s/ KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER
|March 09, 2006   | A Member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1369 

To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 to be used to provide training to school personnel regarding 

how to recognize child sexual abuse. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to be used to provide 

training to school personnel regarding how to recognize 

child sexual abuse. 

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 ‘‘Helping Schools Pro5 tect Our Children Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1369 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRAINING TEACHERS TO RECOGNIZE CHILD SEX2 UAL ABUSE. 

3 (a) STATE ACTIVITIES.—Section 2113(c) of the Ele4 mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

5 6613(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(19) Providing training for all school per7 sonnel, including teachers, principals, specialized in8 structional support personnel, and paraprofessionals, 

9 regarding how to recognize child sexual abuse.’’. 

10 (b) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES.— 

11 Section 2123(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Edu12 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)) is amended by 

13 inserting after paragraph (8) the following: 

14 ‘‘(9) Providing training for all school personnel, 

15 including teachers, principals, specialized instruc16 tional support personnel, and paraprofessionals, re17 garding how to recognize child sexual abuse.’’. 

18 (c) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES.—Section 

19 2134(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

20 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6634(a)) is amended— 

21 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

22 after the semicolon; 

23 (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the period 

24 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1369 IS

1 ‘‘(3) providing training for school personnel, in2 cluding teachers, principals, specialized instructional 

3 support personnel, and paraprofessionals, regarding 

4 how to recognize child sexual abuse.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.1


              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                            --------------------------------------------------
                              1999      1998       1997       1996      1995
                            --------  --------  ---------  ---------  --------
                                             (IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                        <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
FIXED CHARGES:
  Gross interest expense    $ 25,167  $  14,414  $  6,811   $   6,365  $  5,297
  Interest portion of
    rent expense                  28         39        32          29        25
                            --------  ---------  --------   ---------  --------
                              25,195     14,453     6,843       6,395     5,322
EARNINGS:
  Income (loss) before
    taxes                     36,369   (113,440)   33,423      10,847    (4,112)
  Plus: fixed charges         25,195     14,453     6,843       6,394     5,322
  Less: capitalized interest (11,860)    (9,817)   (5,873)     (3,490)   (2,899)
                            --------  ---------  --------   ---------  --------
                            $ 49,704  $(108,804) $ 34,393   $  13,751  $ (1,689)

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED       2.0x      N/M        5.0x        2.2x     N/M
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
   
We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our reports dated March 13, 1998, in Amendment No. 4 to the
Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-57011) and related Prospectus of Iron
Age Corporation for the registration of $100,000,000 of its 9- 7/8% senior
subordinated notes due 2008.     
 
Ernst & Young LLP
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
   
September 14, 1998
#### HESS, ROGERS & Co. v. THOMAS M. BROWER.

*Attachment — Sufficiency of Affidavit.*

In proceedings in attachment, an affidavit which sets out; “1st. That the defendant is indebted, &c. 2nd. That the defendant has departed from this State with intent, as affiant is informed and believes, to avoid the service of summons,” is sufficient.

*■■•{Love*v. Young, 69 N. 0. 05 ; *Hughes*v. *Person,*63 N C. 518, cited and approved)

MotioN to vacate a 'Warrant of Attachment, heard at Fall Term, 1876, of SuRRY Superior Court, before *Cloud, J.*

The motion was made by the defendant upon the ground ■ of insufficiency of the affidavit of plaintiff. The affidavit is . as follows:

“W. A. Moore agent of the plaintiffs above named being ■ duly sworn says ;

1. That defendant Thomas M. Brower is indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $780.60 due by bonds.

2. That said defendant has departed from this State with intent, as affiant is informed and believes, to avoid the ser-vice of summons.”

Sworn to and subscribed before the Clerk of the Superior «Court.'

His Honor being of opinion with the defendant allowed the motion and set aside the order of attachment. Plaintiffs .appealed.

*Messrs. Watson*Glenn, for plaintiffs.

*Mr. J. F. Graves,*for defendant.

Bynum, J.

We think the affidavit is sufficient though mot as full and explicit as it in caution should have been *429made. It states a fact accomplished, to-wit; that the defendant has departed from the State and then concludes-with the averment that it was with the intent to avoid the service of a summons as the affiant is informed and believes. It is not always convenient or prudent to state the source of one’s information in the affidavit, yet it may he a sufficient ground of belief to authorize the Clerk to issue the warrant. of attachment. If the affiant in point of fact had received no such information and had no reasonable grounds for his. belief we see no reason why he could not be indicted for perjury in this particular. We think the affidavit is in substantial compliance with C. C. P. § 201. *Love*v. *Young,*69 N. C. 65. *Hughes*v. *Person,*63 N. C. 548. There is error-judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further-proceedings according to law.

Per Curiaii. Judgment reversed..
#### Northern Land Company, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Live Stock Association, Appellant.

*February 10*

March *2, 1915.*

*Appeal: Errors in admitting evidence: Trial by court: Adverse possession: Entry: Parol license.*

1. Error cannot, upon appeal, he predicated upon the admission of evidence in a case tried by the court without a jury.

2. In an action to quiet title to land the evidence is *held*to sustain findings to the effect that defendant, who claimed title by adverse possession, entered and held under a parol license from plaintiff.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Oconto county: W. B. Quinlan, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*F. V. Werner,*for the appellant.

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *C. F. Dillett,*attorney, and *P. J. Winter,*counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Dillett.*

Timlin, J.

This is a suit to quiet title of the respondent to lands described in the complaint. Respondent had the legal title. Appellant claimed title by adverse possession of ten years under a quitclaim deed from one who had no title. It is not disputed that the appellant had such quitclaim deed *204or tbat it was in possession or that it occupied and inclosed the land, but it is claimed that it entered, took possession, held, and inclosed the land for the purpose of pasturing its cattle by; permission of the respondent. The appellant’s counsel thinks he has discovered thirty errors made by the court below in the trial of this simple issue. The first four errors are in the admission of evidence. Errors cannot be predicated upon the erroneous admission of evidence in a case tried by the court without a jury.

The question whether there is any competent evidence to sustain a finding or findings is entirely different and may be raised upon appeal or writ of error. The remaining twenty-six errors, it is claimed, also have occurred in the judicial investigation of the question whether or not the defendant entered and held under parol license from the plaintiff. There was the express testimony of two witnesses to the making of a parol license. There was testimony of other witnesses to admissions made by the managing agents of the defendant in corroboration of the existence of such license and proof that the plaintiff for thirteen years last past paid and the defendant did not pay the taxes on this land. This was amply sufficient to support the finding. The judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— It is so ordered.