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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 716

To amend the Social Security Act to provide for criminal penalties for acts

involving medicare or State health care programs, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Social Security Act to provide for criminal

penalties for acts involving medicare or State health care

programs, 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,

3 SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ACTS INVOLVING

4 MEDICARE OR STATE HEALTH CARE PRO5 GRAMS.

6 Section 1128B(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42

7 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(b)(3)) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara9 graph (D);
2

•S 716 IS

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub2 paragraph (E) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraph:

5 ‘‘(F)(i) any premium payment made to a health

6 insurer or health maintenance organization by a

7 State agency in connection with a demonstration

8 project operated under the State medicaid program

9 pursuant to section 1115 respect to individuals par10 ticipating in such project; or

11 ‘‘(ii) any payment made by a health insurer or

12 a health maintenance organization to a sales rep13 resentative or a licensed insurance agent for the pur14 pose of servicing, marketing, or enrolling individuals

15 participating in such demonstration project in a

16 health plan offered by such an insurer or organiza17 tion.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 10.2**

**Consent of Independent Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Atrium European Real Estate Limited:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-188107) on Form F-3 of Gazit-Globe Ltd of our report dated March 12,2014, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Atrium European Real Estate Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements ofcomprehensive income, consolidated cash flow statements, and consolidated statements of changes in equity for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2013; as well as our report dated March 12, 2013, with respect to theconsolidated statements of financial position of Atrium European Real Estate Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of comprehensive income,consolidated cash flow statements, and consolidated statements of changes in equity for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2012, which reports appear in the December 31, 2013 annual report on Form 20-F of Gazit-GlobeLtd. 

KPMG Channel Islands Limited 

Jersey, Channel Islands

April 16, 2014
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2037 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2037

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2037/2002 of 15 November 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002 **

*
Official Journal L 313 , 16/11/2002 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2037/2002

of 15 November 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002(3).

(2) Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002(5), allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum export refund.

(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the rice in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002 is hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 11 to 14 November 2002 at 175,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 15 November 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27.

(3) OJ L 287, 25.10.2002, p. 8.

(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.

(5) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18.
#### Gregory Charles KRUG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas PELLICANE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55178

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Gregory Charles Krug, Pro Se

Tim Laske, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Charles Krug appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Assuming without deciding that a *Bivens*remedy may be inferred for a First Amendment retaliation claim, *see Ziglar v. Abbasi,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1857-58, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017), the district court properly dismissed Krug’s retaliation claim because Krug failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that chilling or deterring Krug’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in defendants’ conduct. *See Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County,*192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999) (requirements for First Amendment retaliation claim); *see also Ford v. City of Yakima,*706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must establish that “the officers’ conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity” and that “the officers’ desire to chill his speech was a but-for 'cause of their allegedly unlawful conduct”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as premature Krug’s request for an evidentiary hearing due to the pendency of defendants’ motion to dismiss.

We reject as unsupported by the record Krug’s contention regarding judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Federal Aviation

Administration

Memorandum

Date: September 19, 2013

To: Docket No. FAA-2008-0677

Subject: Summary of Families of Continental Flight 3407 Meeting with OIRA Regarding 

the FAA SNPRM on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and 

Aircraft Dispatchers Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On September 18, 2013, representatives from the Families of Continental Flight 3407 (Families 

Flight 3407) met with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in accordance with Executive Order 12866 to discuss the FAA Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers 

and Aircraft Dispatchers. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s General 

Counsel’s Office and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Chief Counsel’s Office participated 

in the meeting in a listening capacity only.

Families Flight 3407 explained that the SNPRM responded to 28 NTSB recommendations, nine 

of which resulted from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation of the 

Colgan Air accident. They further explained that a number of the safety issues related to the 

Colgan Air accident had been previously identified by the NTSB but left unresolved. 

Additional issues discussed by Families Flight 3407 are summarized as follows:

• The proposed compliance should be shortened. 

• The final rule should include requirements for training stick shaker, stick pusher and stall

recovery. 

• The final rule should include the proposed continuous analysis process as well as 

remedial training provisions consistent with NTSB recommendation A-05-14. Voluntary 

initiatives related to remedial training prior to the Administrator’s Call to Action were 

ineffective because few carriers participated. 

• Pilot training and evaluation records should include specific information regarding 

training and evaluation events so that a pilot’s training and qualification can be fully 

assessed. 

Proposed requirements that received specific support from Families Flight 3407 include scenario 

based training (line oriented flight training), crew pairing during training, crew resource 

management training, mandatory simulator use in training programs, and training more adverse 

scenarios. 
Families Flight 3407 concluded that this rulemaking will provide the most critical airline safety 

improvements related to Colgan Air Flight 3407.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Bradford ASBURY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4634

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS *&*COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Bradford Asbury pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distributé cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base and was sentenced to 110 months of imprisonment. Asbury argues that his sentence is not substantively reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall *v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We examine substantive reasonableness considering the totality of the circumstances. *Id.*“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [2012] factors.” *United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

Asbury posits that his sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court meaningfully considered defense counsel’s suggestions for a lower sentence and explained its chosen sentence. Furthermore, Asbury presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence.

We therefore affirm Asbury’s sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, John R. Harris, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of eTelecare Global Solutions, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By: /s/ John R. Harris     John R. Harris    Chief Executive Officer and President    (Principal Executive Officer)    Date: March 14, 2008  
109
#### Sam SOHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17231

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

*714Sam Sohn, Pro Se

Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is Suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Sam Sohn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement in her action alleging federal and state claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement. *Doi v. Halekulani Corp.,*276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the settlement demand constituted a valid settlement agreement when Wells Fargo accepted it and Sohn provides no basis, to rescind the settlement agreement unilaterally. *See Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc.,*640 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] contract that omits terms ... [that affect the value of the bargain] is enforceable under California law, so long as the terms it does include are sufficiently definite for a court to determine whether a breach has occurred, order specific performance or award damages.”); *Huens v. Tatum,*52 Cal.App.4th 259, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 438, 442 (1997) (“To set ... aside [a settlement], one must present contractual grounds for rescission-fraud, mutual mistake, coercion, etc.”); *see also Jeff D. v. Andrus,*899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (elements of a contract under California law).

We reject as without merit Sohn’s contentions concerning the district court’s decision to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. *See Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp.,*876 F.2d 702, 708 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[Wlhere the parties dispute the existence or terms of the [settlement] agreement, an evidentiary hearing is required.” (citation omitted))

We reject as unsupported by the record Sohn’s contention concerning judicial bias.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sohn’s motion to amend her reply brief (Docket Entry No. 39) is granted. The Clerk shall file the oversized reply brief received on October 16, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 38).

Sohn’s motion for an extension of time to file a corrected reply brief (Docket Entry No. 40) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jaffe, Darren (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

All, 

Donovan, Abigail <Abigaii.Donovan@aa.com> 

Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:35 PM 

englets@state.gov; cristinasa@state.gov; Flaningan, Paul; Hedberg, Brian (OST); Homan, 

Todd (OST); Irvine, Peter.(DST); Remo, Laura (OST); Kruger, Brett (OST); 

john.allen@faa.gov; dan.weiss@united.com; 'steve.morrissey@united.com' 

(steve.morrissey@united.com); gmurphy@crowell.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; 

chris.walker@delta.com; Jaffe, Darren (OST) 

Kass, Howard; Wirick, Robert 

SERVICE Exemption Renewal (US-Brazil TAM Codesharing) 

AA Application for Renewal of Exemption Authority (US-Brazil TAM Codesharing).pdf · 

American Airlines just filed the attached Application for an Exemption Renewal (US-Brazil) in Docket DOT-OST-2012-

0209. AA has already polled on the Application and received no objections. 

Thanks, 

Abby 

Abby Donovan 

American Airlines 

202.326.5164 

1 

_;. 

'···· i
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 of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Lilly, Chief Financial 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, 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.





/s/ STEVEN C. LILLYSteven C. LillyChief Financial OfficerFebruary 26, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 983 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 983

     To reduce the number of executive branch political appointees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mr. Feingold (for himself and Mr. McCain) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reduce the number of executive branch political appointees.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

    (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term ``political 
appointee'' means any individual who--
            (1) is employed in a position on the executive schedule 
        under sections 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United States 
        Code;
            (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
        appointee, or noncareer appointee in the senior executive 
        service as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of 
        title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
            (3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of 
        the Government of a confidential or policy-determining 
        character under Schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title 5 
        of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    (b) Limitation.--The President, acting through the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, shall 
take such actions as necessary (including reduction in force actions 
under procedures established under section 3595 of title 5, United 
States Code) to ensure that the total number of political appointees 
shall not exceed 2,000.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on October 1, 
1995.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS18 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
December 1, 2006,  and the Standard  Terms of Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of December 1, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company,
LLC, as master servicer,  and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,  as trustee,
does hereby  certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director