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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, 

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION;

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF  No. 08-1977 JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER;

DEMOCRACY 21,

Amici Supporting Appellees. 

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

(S. Ct. No. 09-724)

Decided on Remand: June 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, C. Arlen BEAM, Senior

Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation, and

Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for

the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Published Order on Remand from the Supreme Court entered

per curiam.
COUNSEL

Michael Boos, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BOOS, Fairfax,

Virginia; James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Clayton J.

Callen, BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM, Terre Haute, Indiana, for Appellant. Thomasenia P. Duncan, General Counsel,

David Kolker, Associate General Counsel, Harry J. Summers,

Assistant General Counsel, Adav Noti, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.; Gregory G. Katsas,

Assistant Attorney General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Dana J. Boente,

Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael S.

Raab, Eric Fleisig-Greene, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for

Appellees. Donald J. Simon, SONOSKY, CHAMBERS,

SACHSE, ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP, Washington, D.C.,

Fred Wertheimer, DEMOCRACY 21, Washington, D.C., for

Democracy 21, Amicus Supporting Appellees; J. Gerald

Hebert, Paul S. Ryan, Tara Malloy, THE CAMPAIGN

LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Campaign Legal

Center, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.

Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the government

may not, under the First Amendment, suppress speech on the

basis of the speaker’s corporate identity and that a statutory

prohibition of corporate spending for electioneering communications violated the First Amendment. Based on that holding, the Court granted the petition filed in this case for a writ

of certiorari, vacated our judgment, reported in The Real

Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission,

2 THE REAL TRUTH v. FCC
575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009), and remanded this case for "further consideration in light of Citizens United . . . and the

Solicitor General’s suggestion of mootness." The Real Truth

About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 78

U.S.L.W. 3627 (U.S. Apr. 26, 2010). On further consideration, we now reissue Parts I and II of our earlier opinion in

this case, 575 F.3d at 345-347, stating the facts and articulating the standard for the issuance of preliminary injunctions.

On the remaining issues, we remand the case to the district

court for consideration of the intervening Supreme Court

decision in Citizens United and the Solicitor General’s new

suggestion of mootness.

It is so ordered.

THE REAL TRUTH v. FCC 3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 681 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 681

                      To reauthorize the READ Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2023

   Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself and Ms. Meng) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                      To reauthorize the READ Act.

    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 ``READ Act Reauthorization Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 4(a) of the Reinforcing Education Accountability in 
Development Act (division A of Public Law 115-56; 22 U.S.C. 2151c note) 
is amended by striking ``during the following five fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``during the following ten fiscal years''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                 BACOU USA, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 (in thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
                                                        --------------------

                                                          1998         1997
                                                        -------      -------

<S>                                                     <C>          <C>    
Basic:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                    17,594       17,312
                                                        =======      =======

  Net income                                            $ 1,132      $ 4,132
                                                        =======      =======
  Per share amount                                      $  0.06      $  0.24
                                                        =======      =======

Diluted:

  Weighted average shares outstanding                    17,594       17,312

  Net effect of dilutive stock options
   based on the treasury stock method
   using the average market price                            60           10
                                                        -------      -------

 Total diluted shares                                    17,654       17,322
                                                        -------      -------
  Net income                                            $ 1,132      $ 4,132
                                                        =======      =======
  Per share amount                                      $  0.06      $  0.24
                                                        =======      =======
</TABLE>
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Wayland, Robertj Subject: Tomorrow -- DOE

Hi Bob,

If we have the meeting from 1-2 tomorrow, will Kevin be on the call? DOE prefers the 5-6 time slot (and in person). I’m thinking that if we can do an in person meeting (Thurs or Friday), it will be best. It sounds like Thursday is better than Friday on your end?

Regards, Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins, PhD Policy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE 202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov
Exhibit 10.13

AMENDMENT  NO.  1  TO  THE  SUBSCRIPTION  AGREEMENT  DATED  APRIL  25, 2002 (THE
"SUBSCRIPTION  AGREEMENT")  BETWEEN  DIVERSIFIED  PRODUCT  INSPECTIONS,  INC., A
FLORIDA  CORPORATION,  (THE "COMPANY"), AND THE UNDERSIGNED DEBENTURE PURCHASER,
SOFCON  LIMITED.

The  undersigned  parties  hereby  agree  to  remove the following language from
section  1  (c)  of  the  Subscription  Agreement:

"As  further  conditions  to  the funding of the second tranche in the amount of
$100,000 it will only be funded if, during the 20 trading days prior to funding,
(i)  the  closing bid price has not been less than $0.25, (ii) the daily average
dollar  trading volume (trading volume x closing bid price  by number of trading
days)  has  not  been less than $20,000 and (iii) the number of shares of Common
Stock being registered is not less than 200% of the number of shares required to
effect a conversion of the totaling $300,000 Debentures, taking into account the
number  of  Warrants  issued  and  accrued  but  unpaid  interest and liquidated
damages,  if  any."

Dated:  June  3,  2002


DIVERSIFIED  PRODUCT  INSPECTIONS,  INC.

BY:  /s/ John Van Zyll
      __________________
       John  Van  Zyll


SOFCON  LIMITED


BY:  /s/ Jan Telander
      ______________
     Jan Telander
# EUR-Lex - 32002R0680 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R0680

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002 of 19 April 2002 amending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector **

*
Official Journal L 104 , 20/04/2002 P. 0026 - 0027 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002

of 19 April 2002

amending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), and in particular Article 27(15) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides for export refunds to be granted on certain products referred to in that Regulation when exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V thereto.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(2) amends the Combined Nomenclature, in particular for certain products processed from products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.

(3) The list of goods given in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should consequently be amended.

(4) The amendments should apply at the same time as Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 is amended in accordance with the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 April 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 279, 23.10.2001, p. 1.

ANNEX

In Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, the line:

>TABLE>

is replaced by:

>TABLE>.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR16 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 865 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 865

           Entitled the ``Securities Act Amendment of 1995''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 25 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

  Mr. Bennett introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           Entitled the ``Securities Act Amendment of 1995''.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LOSS CAUSATION.

    Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 771) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
``Provided, That such remedy of rescission shall not be available if 
the defendant proves that any depreciation in value of such security 
represents other than depreciation in value of such security resulting 
from such part of the prospectus, with respect to which his liability 
is asserted, not being true or omitting to state a material fact 
required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements 
therein not misleading, in which case the person purchasing such 
security shall recover as damages only so much of the depreciation in 
value of such security as such defendant shall fail to prove to have 
resulted from a cause other than his misrepresentation or omission in 
such prospectus.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Milton N. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6769

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

*299Milton N. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Milton N. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Williams’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 13, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 13, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0140. JASON HILL v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-

3.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17CV66953
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         MARKWEST ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
                            LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

The MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended as follows:

A.       SECTION 1.,  PURPOSE OF THE PLAN, is amended by deleting the first
sentence  thereof,  in its entirety and replacing it with the following revised
sentence:

         The MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
         "Plan") is intended to promote the interests of MarkWest Energy
         Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), by
         providing to employees and directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the
         "Company") and its Affiliates, and to directors of MarkWest
         Hydrocarbon, Inc., who perform services for the Partnership incentive
         compensation awards for superior performance that are based on Units.

B.       SECTION 2.,  DEFINITIONS,  is amended by deleting the  definition  of
"Director"  in its entirety and replacing it with the following revised
definition of "Director":

         "Director" means a Person who is not an Employee and is (a) a member of
         the Board, or (b) a member of the board of directors of MarkWest
         Hydrocarbon, Inc.

C.       Except for the foregoing, all other terms and provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect.

D.       This First Amendment is subject to the approval of the Board of
Directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C., and upon that approval shall be
effective as of the effective date of the Plan.
| (1)    |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                                         |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |
| (2)    |   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |

| By:   | /s/      Joseph K. Pagano                                                                  |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            | Joseph      K. Pagano                                                                 |
|            | Chief      Executive Officer and Treasurer(Principal      Executive and Financial Officer) |

| Date:      March 30, 2009  |
|---------------------------------|

----
# Materials NotIncluded in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1225 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM257 AD

FIREFIGHTING ENTASS 26-115 --- 9/09

Name/Description of item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket
MAY BEVIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. Sw., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9am and 3p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Dale: 03/0512008
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, C.E. Andrews, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLMStudent Loan Trust 2006-10 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement andadministration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as indenture trustee.Date: March 23, 2007   /s/ C.E. Andrews   C.E. Andrews  Chief Financial Officer  SLM Funding LLC