alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JWN-3.02.2012-Ex 10.3






Exhibit 10.3 
AMENDMENT 2012-1
NORDSTROM 401(k) PLAN & PROFIT SHARING
(2008 Restatement)


The Nordstrom 401(k) Plan & Profit Sharing (the “Plan”) is hereby amended pursuant to Plan Section 13.1-3 to clarify that eligibility to make Elective Deferral Contributions or designated Roth contributions terminates on the Employee's Severance from Employment Date.


1.    Section 5.2 Elective Deferral Contributions is amended by replacing Section 5.2-4 Changes to Deferral Election with the following, effective March 1, 2012:


“5.2-4 Changes to Deferral Election.  During employment, a Participant may modify, suspend or resume Elective Deferral Contributions by any telephonic, electronic or written means established by the Administrator.  Any such change shall be effective as of the first day of the next payroll cycle following processing of the change notification received by the Administrator; provided, however, that if the Administrator is not able to administratively process the change by such payroll date, the change shall be effective as soon as the administrative processing is complete.  A Participant's Elective Deferral Contributions election will be automatically revoked on the Participant's Severance from Employment Date.  Accordingly, the Participant's Elective Deferral Contributions election will be applied to Compensation paid on or before the Severance from Employment Date, but a Participant is not eligible to make Elective Deferral Contributions from Compensation paid after the Severance from Employment Date.  A rehired Participant must reinitiate a new Elective Deferral Contribution election in the manner specified by the Administrator.”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to proper authority, this Amendment 2012-1 has been executed on behalf of the Company this ________ day of ________________, 2012.


NORDSTROM, INC.


By:    _______________________________________                                
Title:    Executive Vice President
Human Resources and Diversity Affairs
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6941 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6941

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fleeing law 
    enforcement officers enforcing immigration laws, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2024

  Mr. Rosendale (for himself, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Gooden of 
Texas, Mr. Harris, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Burlison, Mr. 
Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Biggs, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Fry, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
 Ogles, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Collins) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fleeing law 
    enforcement officers enforcing immigration laws, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Criminalize Fleeing from Immigration 
Enforcement Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. FLEEING ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS.

    (a) In General.--Section 758 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 758. Fleeing enforcement of immigration laws
    ``Whoever--
            ``(1) flees or evades a Federal, State, or local law 
        enforcement officer, which officer has identified himself as 
        such an officer, enforcing section 274(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii), 
        section 274(a)(2), section 275, section 276, or section 277 of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1325, 1326, 
        1327); or
            ``(2) flees or evades a checkpoint operated by the 
        Immigration and Naturalization Service, or any other Federal 
        law enforcement agency, and flees Federal, State, or local law 
        enforcement agents,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, 
or both, or, in the case of flight or evasion in motor vehicle in 
excess of the legal speed limit, shall be fined under this title, 
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 35 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item related 
to section 758 and inserting the following:

``758. Fleeing enforcement of immigration laws.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATION    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of AerCap Holdings N.V. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form-20-F") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2010

By:

/s/ KLAUS HEINEMANNKlaus Heinemann Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 15, 2010

By:

/s/ KEITH HELMINGKeith Helming Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 734

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal

building to be constructed at the southeastern corner

of Liberty and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada,

as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse

and Federal Building’’, 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,
2

S 734 ES

1 SECTION 1 . DESIGNATION OF BRUCE R. THOMPSON

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL

3 BUILDING.

4 The United States courthouse and Federal building

5 to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty

6 and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada, shall be

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United

8 States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

9 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

10 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

11 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

12 and Federal building referred to in section 1 shall be

13 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson

14 United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate August 9 (legislative day, July

10), 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 734

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse and

eral Building’’, and for other purposes.Thompson United States Courthouse and FedStreets in Reno, Nevada, as the ‘‘Bruce R.eastern corner of Liberty and South VirginiaFederal building to be constructed at the south-
Notes from Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute (API) re: Environmental Integrity 

Project (EIP), et al., Petition to add the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry to the list of facilities 

that must report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) pursuant to 

the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provisions of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

February 25, 2014, 3 pm, WJC Building North Rm 4304

Attendees:

Kevin Minoli, EPA/OGC

Chris Kaczmarek, EPA/OGC

Benjamin Wakefield, EPA/OGC

Daniel Schramm, EPA/OGC

Steven Knizner, EPA/TRI

Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA/TRI

Gilbert Mears, EPA/TRI

Khary Cauthen, API

Barbara Ehimika, API

Evelyn Nackman, API

Matthew Haynie, API

Stephanie Meadows, API

Minutes:

Kevin Minoli welcomed everyone and introduced himself. 

API thanked EPA for the meeting and explained that their interest in meeting was to learn more 

about EPA’s intentions for the petition and whether EPA was hearing from other stakeholders.

EPA explained that we received a supplementary letter from EIP in late January that seemed 

more focused on processing facilities than the original petition, which identified both 

downstream processing and drilling activities. This letter is now in the public docket. 

API explained that it hoped to be responsive to the petition and to EPA’s informational needs, 

and wanted to know whether it was an appropriate time for them to provide their own 

information to the Agency, and whether the Agency had put out a request for information.

EPA explained that while there had not been a formal request for information, when EPA is 

considering a petition for rulemaking, nothing prevents anyone from submitting their own views 

and information on that petition. Such information would be included in the docket for the 

petition. 

The petition docket is basically informational; it’s not like a rulemaking docket and there is not a 

formal comment period that would be open (or closed). 
There are already two other letters in the docket for this petition, one from Washington Legal 

Foundation, and another from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, in addition to the submissions from 

EIP.

So API should feel free to provide information, and submissions would go into the docket. 

API asked whether EPA would be reviewing the information in the attachments to the EIP 

petition.

EPA explained that we would review everything that is in the docket. 

API asked how soon EPA needs information and whether a month would be good. API wants to 

make sure its submission is timely.

EPA said that within a month should not be a problem. 

API asked whether EPA has to respond to the petition.

EPA explained that the Agency generally believes it has a fair amount of discretion in how it 

chooses to respond to petitions for rulemaking, but failure to respond to petitions may result in 

litigation.

[end meeting]
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC R’Y. CO. v. HEWITT.

Appeal from Dallas county.

*Damages.*— In an action to recover damages for failing to deliver goods, the rental value of the same-can not be recovered. The measure of damages in such a suit is the fair market value at the point of destination, of the goods lost, with legal interest thereon from the date when the goods should have been delivered. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte Walter ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7664

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 11, 2017

Donte Walter Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donte Walter Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we grant Robinson’s motions to supplement, deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 To the extent that Robinson attempts to assert a new claim on appeal that the February 2017 expungement of one of his past drug offenses entitles him to sentencing relief, such a claim should be presented to the district court in the first instance. *See United States v. Hairston,*754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 2255 motion is not successive where "the facts relied on by the movant seeking resentencing did not exist when the numerically first motion was filed and adjudicated.”) The one-year limitations period for filing such a motion continues to run. We express no opinion as to the appropriate resolution of such a motion.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACTS OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I Stephen
Rade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                                   By: /s/ Stephen Rade
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Stephen Rade
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       August 16, 2004
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AIJFTINA 11OUl8. bo8tabli8hd by 8 8OfItraOtWbiOh

waly OOflfW8 

### a ~itllya oi huntlnl; OS premia88 

### ot the ~antar 

### elthou& the l dth8 tr8nnwOtion a 

### l lmSO".



### -Butthowh th8 oontraot un4.r rrhisir Klbbia . 

### holdr~ deaomlantw Stsol? l 

### *18880*aad 80 **danamhater it**  **i0** hi8 ~~tit%On, - **00** 

### 1 **ho all8etiOll8**  **Ot** 

### l **QpOllU ’** **8 ~titiOll**  t-t it 8, 

### la raot only a pot30~U 110~~88fo Xlbbla to caJoy 

### tho **&It8** 

### &rant& hlr **by it8**  

### tUU, Md 18 in II08UISe ti

### tO@hliiOti l-8, a8 t&t taim i8 **uad~atGOd.=**

### 6. tom of dcmwl4d~t for the 8i&a~tu?oai

th. 

### lloea8ormbdtted 

### for oar 4+otnl, to bo wed In 

### ttiqwll.r~Dtora$lon lioam*, la wti8saosoq. 

### Trnstln8that thlr 

### touJ armelm your inqulryi n are

APPROVID~T 

### 20, 1939

A?
## Lancaste r Count y P.O . Bo x 180 9 10 1 N . Mai

n St . Lancaster , S C 2972 1 Telephone ; 803-285-156 5

lancastercountysc . ne t ML ' 

### IPTOFIRANSPORWiO N

' • 3 0 Apri l 20 , 201 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operation s M-3 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenu e S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 20590-000 1 RE : FA

A Docke t No . FAA-20 J 0-004 9 an dAirspac e Docke t No . 08

- AWA- 1 Dea r Sir o r Madam : Recentl y Mr . Mirosla v Velickovic hwrot e (lette r date dApri l 16 , 2010 ) regardin g th e proposal t o exten dClas s B airspac e ove r th e Lancaste r County , S C Airport

- McWhirte r

Fiel d(KLKR ) t o serv e th e Charlott e (NC ) - Dougla s Airport . Whil e ou r preferenc e remain s no t

t o hav e an y Clas s B airspac e ove r our airport , w e certainl y endors e Mr . Velickovich' s reques t

t o modif y th e floo r

o f th e airspace . A s Mr . Velickovic hnotes , h e hold s an Acrobati c Practic e Are a waive r fromth e FAA . Our

airport i s wel l suite dfor

suc hpractic e an di t enhance s publi c interes t

i n aviation . W e conside r it apositiv e benefi t tha t hi s grou p utilize s ou r

county airport . I woul dlik e t o g o o n recor da s askin g tha t every consideratio n b e give n t o grantin g th e reques t o f Mr . Velickovich . Withkindes t

regards , I am Sincerel y yours , Stev e Willi s County Administrato r



### sw/ cc : Count

y Counci l Dou g Barne s - Chairman , Airpor t Commission Mr . Mirosla

v Velickovic

h
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               DECEMBER 31,
                                                            -------------------
                                                              1999       1998
                                                            --------   --------
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>
Net loss..................................................  $(1,791)   $(1,426)
                                                            =======    =======
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
  Basic...................................................    6,734      6,678
                                                            =======    =======
  Fully Diluted...........................................    6,734      6,678
                                                            =======    =======
Net loss per common share:
  Basic...................................................  $ (0.27)   $ (0.21)
                                                            =======    =======
  Diluted.................................................  $ (0.27)   $ (0.21)
                                                            =======    =======
</TABLE>

Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share:

    Basic net income (loss) per common share (Basic EPS) excludes dilution and
computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per common share
(Diluted EPS) reflects the potential dilution that could occur if stock options
or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common
stock. The computation of Diluted EPS does not assume exercise or conversion of
securities that would have an antidilutive effect on net income per common
share. In periods where losses are recorded, common stock equivalents would
decrease the loss per share and are therefore not added to the weighted average
shares outstanding.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Barbara J. Fournier, Chief Operating Officer and principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to her knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date:  March 12, 2010
/s/ Barbara J. FournierBarbara J. FournierChief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04773]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: March 7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
February 28, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service 
Contract 215 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-42, CP2022-48.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-04773 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EX-35 (d)
(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 13, 2007

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-15XS

Per Section 9.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  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 an Additional Servicer, has
     been made under such officer's supervision,

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, 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 thereof
     and

(C)  in the case of the Master Servicer, to the best of such officer's
     knowledge, each Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under its
     Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, 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 thereof.




Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary