alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Faulk. Scott (OST)" - ,;'!~"

;:; . I , . .• '"",! . . ,: .:.~.1 ; .'~faulk, Scott (OST)
"Monday, July 14, 2014 11:59 AM I :;:~cifuente~@.ci.~isalia.ca.us'; 'thursto~f~rm.ayor@gmail.com';. 'ashu~li~n~ci[visa,lia.ca.us';

-Js~elsen@~l.vls~lla.ca.us'; 'wgubler@cl.vlsall~.c~.u~'; 'greg.~ol~lns@cl.v~salla.cla.us ; 'Citycouncihipcityofrnerced.orq': molmos@cl.vlsalla.ca.us; Elliott, Ron
. Great Lakes, Chuck Howell (chowell@flygreatlakes.com); Great Lakes, Doug Voss (DVoss@flygreatlakes
.com);ShawnSimpson;Makani Kai, Richard Schuman

## I ; SeaPort Airlines, EAs Mailbox (eas@seaportair.com); seaport/Wings of Alaska, Rob McKinney (rob@seaportair.com); Tim Sieber; 'Mike Matthews'; 'Shannon Kane'; patkdashca@aol,com; shannon@dashca.com; 'Mickey Bowman'; Ron Hansen; dave.berry@mokulelehawaii.com; Schlemmer, Kevin (OsT); Devany, Dennis (OsT) Update on EAs at Merced and Visalia I Great Lakes.pdf; Boutique.pdf; Makani Kai at Merced.pdf; Makani Kai at ViSrlia.Pdf; seaPort.pdf; Mokulele.pdf ; \ From: Sent: To:
Cc:

Subject: Attachments: Greetings All: I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at in Merced and Visalia, CA, as well as give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2014-5-9, on May 21, 2014, requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EAS for anew term. In response to our.request, five air carriers submitted proposals: Great Lakes Aviation, Boutique, Makani Kai Air, SeaPort, and Mokulele Airlines. I have attached each air carrier's proposal for your review and I expect them to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than August 15th

. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at scott.faulk@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant parties that I have not included on the distribution list. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Scott Faulk Transportation Industry Analyst U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-9967

1
EXHIBIT
32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Beneficial Mutual Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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 contained in the Report fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Gerard P. Cuddy                  
| |                                      
| | Gerard P. Cuddy                      
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |                                      
| |                                      
| | /s/ Joseph F. Conners                
| |                                      
| | Joseph F. Conners                    
| | Executive Vice President and Chief   
| | Financial Officer                    

March 31, 2008

---
EX-35 (g)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 23, 2007

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FX1

Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling And Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Trust Administrator), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant has been made under such officers' supervision and

(ii) to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, in
     all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
     has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
     specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
     status of cure provisions thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
Re: EPA Docket ID Numb er EPA-HQ-O PP-2007-0923

Dear Sir/Madam:

Nufarm is a leading manufacturer and marketer of generic pesticides for the agricultural, forestry, turf, aquatic, industrial vegetation and specialt y pest management markets with over 500 EPA registered pesticide products. As such, we have a significant interest in the consolidated ICR entitled “Pesticide Data Call-In Program”, EPA ICR No. 2288.01 and OMB C ontrol No. 2070-new.

Our principal comment is that the labor time and burden hours assume relatively few data call-in responses per registrant. As we read the ICR, t he number varies from context to context, but always seems to be less than 20. As a technical registrant for numerous active ingredients and a firm that generates or participates in generati ng many high burden studies, we believe that the number of responses is understated. This is pa rticularly true because we will be affected by multiple data call-ins that are simultaneous or ov erlapping. The situation is exacerbated by the greater number of registrants per active ingredient that complicate the organization of joint testing

programs.

Similarly, due to a multitude of end-use product r egistrations, Nufarm also submits large volumes of studies that are termed “low burden.” In our experience with Reregistration data call-ins, the burden is not low when we have 25, 75 or more than 150 registrations containing a particular active ingredient in conjunction with multip le simultaneous or overlapping data call-ins.

To compensate for this understated burden, we propose that registrants having large numbers of registrations be entitled to longer data call-in res ponse timeframes. Specifically, we propose that 1 extra month be granted for each group of 25 registrations held by the same company (or affiliated companies) and subject to the same data call-in. In other words, if a company has 25-49 registrations 1 extra month would be added, if 50-74 registrations 2 extra months, if 75-99 registrations 3 extra months and so forth. This pr oposal would bring more realistic scale to the burden hour projections.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

William M. Mahlburg Director, Government Affairs Nufarm Americas, Inc. 150 Harvester Drive, Suite 200 Burr Ridge IL 60527
#### John H. MATTHEWS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 22975.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1966.

Thomas W. Hathaway, Tyler, Tex. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant.

Jacob F. Bumstead, U. S. Atty., Beaumont, Tex., H. D. Nicholson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Wayne Justice, U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of Texas, Tyler, Tex., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was charged with a violation of the Dyer Act. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. This appeal is from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict of guilty. The sole contention concerns the admissibility of a confession.

 The trial began on August 4, 1965. Under the prospective application doctrine of Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, appellant was entitled to the benefit of the holding in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758,12 L.Ed.2d 977, but not to that of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. As it happens, the only possible error would depend for substance on the fact that appellant, an indigent, was not advised before the interrogation that he was entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel. This is a right arising under *Miranda*but not under *Escobedo. Miranda*is applicable only to trials beginning after June 13, 1966, and thus its doctrine is of no avail to appellant.

The proof was clear, both on the preliminary examination by the court with respect to the question of the volun*157tariness of the confession, and on submission of the same question to the jury, that no coercion was used in obtaining the statement. Also appellant was told that he need not give a statement; that it could be used against him in court if given ; and that he might consult with counsel before giving a statement. This accords with the law as it existed prior to *Miranda,.*Cf. Lyles v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 503; and Marion v. Harrist, 5 Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 139.

Affirmed.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5746 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit wellness programs from 

sharing personally identifiable information related to individuals’ use 

of or prescriptions for contraceptives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2016 

Ms. DELBENE (for herself, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. SPEIER, 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Ms. 

EDWARDS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. KILMER, 

Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. GALLEGO, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, 

Mr. BEYER, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. 

MOORE, Mr. KEATING, Miss RICE of New York, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

HECK of Washington, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. NORTON, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. 

FARR, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. 

WELCH, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio, and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit wellness 

programs from sharing personally identifiable information related to individuals’ use of or prescriptions for 

contraceptives. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5746 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Birth Control Privacy 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING WELLNESS PROGRAMS FROM SHAR5 ING PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMA6 TION RELATED TO INDIVIDUALS’ USE OF OR 

7 PRESCRIPTIONS FOR CONTRACEPTIVES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2705(j)(1) of the Public 

9 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.300gg–4(j)(1)) is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

11 ‘‘(D) PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALS’ USE OF

12 OR PRESCRIPTIONS FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.— 

13 Such wellness program shall violate this sub14 section if the plan or issuer involved shares per15 sonally identifiable information of an individual 

16 with an employer, either directly or indirectly, 

17 related to the individual’s use of or prescrip18 tions for contraceptives.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to plan years begin21 ning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7090 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

certain compensation to clinical trial participants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms. HOULAHAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income certain compensation to clinical trial 

participants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF COMPENSATION PROVIDED TO 

4 PARTICIPANTS IN CLINICAL TRIALS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

7 by inserting after section 139I the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 139J. CLINICAL TRIAL PAYMENTS. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not include 

10 any amount received by an individual as payment or reimVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:59 Jan 31, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7090.IH H7090

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7090 IH

1 bursement for participation in an approved clinical trial 

2 (including amounts paid or reimbursed for meals, lodging, 

3 or other travel expenses incurred in connection with such 

4 participation). 

5 ‘‘(b) APPROVED CLINICAL TRIAL.—The term ‘ap6 proved clinical trial’ has the meaning given such term in 

7 section 2709(d)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 300gg–8(d)(1)).’’. 

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

10 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

11 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

12 139I the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139J. Clinical trial payments.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to amounts paid after December 

15 31, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 859

To establish terrorist lookout committees in each United States Embassy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To establish terrorist lookout committees in each United

States Embassy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TERRORIST LOOKOUT COMMITTEES.

4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) Not later than 30 days

5 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of

6 State shall establish within each United States Embassy

7 a Terrorist Lookout Committee, which shall include the

8 head of the political section and senior representatives of

9 all United States law enforcement agencies under the au10 thority of the chief of mission.
2

•S 859 IS

1 (2) Each Committee shall be chaired by the respective

2 deputy chief of mission, with the head of the consular sec3 tion as vice chair.

4 (b) MEETINGS.—Each Terrorist Lookout Committee

5 established under subsection (a) shall meet at least month6 ly and shall maintain records of its meetings. Upon the

7 completion of each meeting, each Committee shall report

8 to the Department of State all names submitted for inclu9 sion in the visa lookout system.

10 (c) CERTIFICATION.—If no names are submitted

11 upon completion of a meeting under subsection (b), the

12 deputy chief of mission shall certify to the Secretary of

13 State, subject to potential application the Accountability

14 Review Board provisions of title III of the Omnibus Diplo15 matic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, that none

16 of the relevant sections of the United States Embassy had

17 knowledge of the identity of any individual eligible for in18 clusion in the visa lookout system for possible terrorist

19 activity.

20 (d) REPORT.—The Secretary of State shall submit a

21 report on a quarterly basis to the Committee on Foreign

22 Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Inter23 national Relations of the House of Representatives on the

24 status of the Terrorist Lookout Committees.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6817]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that briefing and planning 
meetings of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will 
convene at 10:30 a.m. (EST) on Monday, March 28, 2011, at the Vermont 
State House, 115 State Street, Room 11, Montpelier, VT 05633.
    The purpose of the briefing is to discuss criminal justice data 
collection and analysis procedures. The purpose of the planning meeting 
is to plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by April 28, 2011. 
Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to the Eastern 
Regional Office (ERO). Persons who desire additional information may 
make their request by mail, e-mail, phone, or fax. See contact 
information below.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the ERO, as they become available, both before and after 
the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee 
are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may 
contact the ERO. See contact information below.
    Persons who are deaf or hearing-impaired who will attend the 
meetings and require the services of a sign language interpreter should 
contact the ERO at least ten (10) days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting either by e-mail or TDD relay service. See contact information 
below.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-6817 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSE E. MORALES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2003

[June 17, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Ilona Maxine Holmes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 04-

6537CF10B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuńa, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

On Confession of Error

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his sentence on a revocation of probation. The 

trial court orally pronounced a sentence of thirty years with a three-year 

mandatory minimum and a $50,000 fine on count two—trafficking in 

cocaine between 28 grams and 200 grams—to run concurrent with the 

other counts. But, the sentencing order and order assessing charges 

reflect a $500,000 fine with a $25,000 surcharge for count two. In his 

Initial Brief, the defendant argues the $500,000 fine and surcharge 

imposed on count two are illegal and do not conform with the court’s oral 

pronouncement. The State agrees. 

First, the oral pronouncement of a $50,000 fine controls. See Briggs v. 

State, 936 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). And second, the State agrees 

the $500,000 fine and $25,000 surcharge is illegal. We agree.
2

We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the 

sentencing order and the Order Assessing Charges/Costs/Fees for count 

two to reflect a $50,000 fine, plus the commensurate 5% surcharge. 

Because this is a scrivener’s error, the defendant agrees he need not be 

present for the correction of the sentencing orders. See Ali v. State, 215 

So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 10.4

                             On SmartServ Letterhead



Mr. Robert M. Pons
439 Williamson Road
Gladwyne, PA 19462

Dear Bob:

            The purpose of this letter agreement is to confirm the amendment to
your Employment Agreement of March 12, 2004. (Capitalized terms not defined
herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.)

            Your Base Salary for the 2005 fiscal year will be $241,500 per
annum.

            Your Bonus Compensation for the 2005 fiscal year will be based on
            the following:

            Successful integration of KPCCD - 15% of Base Salary; Successful
            introduction of Uphonia "brand" and equipment - 15% of Base Salary;
            and Attainment of cash flow break even or better - 35% of Base
            Salary

The determination of the first two bonus items will be based on specific
parameters to be determined by the Compensation Committee and the third item
will be based on the actual results for fiscal year 2005.

            Please sign below to signify your agreement.

                               Sincerely,

                               /s/ Paul J. Keeler
                               ------------------
                               Paul J. Keeler
                               Chairman of the Board

Agreed and accepted:


/s/ Robert M. Pons
------------------
Robert M. Pons
#### Henry A. O’LAGUE, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

2016-2300

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 17, 2017

Michael B. Love, Michael Love Law, PLLD, Spokane, WA, argued for petitioner.

Veronica Nicole Onyema, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Claudia Burke.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Reyna and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.