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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 286

To commend Operation Sail for its advancement of brotherhood among nations, its continuing commemoration of the history of the United States,

and its nurturing of young cadets through training in seamanship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 1, 1996

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

WARNER, Mr. ROBB, Mr. BRADLEY, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To commend Operation Sail for its advancement of brotherhood among nations, its continuing commemoration of

the history of the United States, and its nurturing of

young cadets through training in seamanship.

Whereas Operation Sail is a nonprofit corporation dedicated

to building good will among nations and encouraging

international camaraderie;

Whereas Operation Sail has represented and promoted the

United States of America in the international tall ship

community since 1964, organizing and participating in

numerous tall ship events across the United States and

around the world;
2

•SRES 286 IS

Whereas Operation Sail has worked in partnership with every

American President since President John F. Kennedy;

Whereas Operation Sail has established a great tradition of

celebrating major events and milestones in United States

history with a gathering of the world’s tall ships, and will

continue this great tradition with a gathering of ships in

New York Harbor on July 3 through July 8, 2000, called

OpSail 2000, to mark the 224th birthday of the United

States of America and to welcome the new millennium;

Whereas President Clinton has endorsed OpSail 2000, as

Presidents Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, and Bush have endorsed Operation Sail in previous endeavors;

Whereas OpSail 2000 promises to be the largest gathering in

history of tall ships and other majestic vessels like those

that have sailed the ocean for centuries;

Whereas in conjunction with OpSail 2000, the United States

Navy will conduct an International Naval Review; and

Whereas the International Naval Review will include a naval

aircraft carrier as a symbol of the international good will

of the United States of America: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) commends Operation Sail for its advance3 ment of brotherhood among nations, its continuing

4 commemoration of the history of the United States,

5 and its nurturing of young cadets through training

6 in seamanship;

7 (2) encourages all Americans and citizens of na8 tions around the world to join in the celebration of

9 the 224th birthday of the United States of America
3

•SRES 286 IS

1 and the international camaraderie that Operation

2 Sail and the International Naval Review will foster;

3 and

4 (3) encourages Operation Sail to continue into

5 the next millennium to represent and promote the

6 United States of America in the international tall

7 ship community, and to continue organizing and

8 participating in tall ship events across the United

9 States and around the world.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7229

MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. K. YOUNG,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-908-2)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state

remedies. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not

issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Eury has not made the requisite

showing. See Eury v. Young, No. CA-02-908-2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14,

2002). 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
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-1434.

#### Signature Pharmacy, Inc., et al. *v.*Soares et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

Barrett Business Services, Inc. 

Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors 

As of July 1, 2013, compensation arrangements for non-employee directors of Barrett Business Services, Inc. (the “Company”), include an annual
cash retainer payable in monthly installments. The retainer is $50,000 for directors other than the Chairman of the Board, who receives $90,000. In addition, the chairs and members of the Board committees are paid annual cash fees as follows: Audit
Committee, $15,000 and $7,500; Compensation Committee, $10,000 and $5,000; Nominating and Governance Committee, $7,500 and $3,750; and Investment Committee, $7,500, and $3,750. On July 1 of each year, each non-employee director also receives an
award of restricted stock units under the Company’s 2009 Stock Incentive Plan with a fair market value of $50,000 based on the closing price on the date of grant and vesting in four equal annual installments.
### NUMBER 13
- 10
- 00 186
- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ LEONARD WAYNE WHITE, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Leonard Wayne White , was convicted of i njury to a c hild, e lderly or
d isabled i ndividual . On March 22, 2010 , appellant filed a notice of appeal by and through his appoint ed counsel

. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. According to the motion, appellant has been reinstated on probation and no longer desires to appeal. Counsel has tried several times to get appellant to sign the2

motion to dismiss , but appellant has failed to keep his appointments. Counsel states that appellant is not concerned about his appeal because his sentence was reconsidered by the judge and he was placed back on probation. Although no written motion has been filed in compl iance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case in accordance with Rule 2. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2. Based upon counsel’s sworn statements, counsel’s motion is granted and the appeal is
DISMISSED.
P ER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 5th day of August , 2010.
#### Maria DOMINGO-LUCAS Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1652

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 22, 2018

Filed: January 25, 2018

Marisa-Andrea Moore, Law Office óf Marisa-Andrea Moore, Grand Island, NE, for Petitioner

Laura M.L. Maroldy, Carl H. McIntyre, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan Maria Domingo-Lucas petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Domingo-Lucas failed to show that the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to control the private actor that she fears. This finding is dispositive of Domingo-Lucas’s asylum claim. *See Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder,*709 F.3d 728, 731-33 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and asylum requirements; noting that without government imprimatur, asylum claims based on the conduct of private parties fail; specifically finding no well-founded fear of persecution). Because Domingo-Lucas did not satisfy asylum’s less rigorous burden, her withholding claim necessarily fails also. *See id.*at 733-34.

The petition for review is denied.
October 27th, 2015 

Ryan Koverman 

Windy City Drones 

450 Village Creek Dr. 

Lake in the Hills, IL 60156 

(630) 635-8020 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

RE: FAA sUAS Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 12266 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Windy City Drones, LLC was previously issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2015-2116, Exemption No. 12266 for the purpose of aerial data collection. We hereby 

respectfully request an amendment to this exemption for the purpose of adding the following sUAS: 

DJI Inspire 1 

DJI Spreading Wings SIOOO (with A2 Flight Controller) 

Windy City Drones, LLC refers the FAA to its original Petition for Exemption for a listing of 

the regulations for which an exemption is being sought, a demonstration of the public interest, and a 

showing of an equivalent level of safety. There have been no changes in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original Exemption. 

Please feel free to contact us if you should have any questions or concerns regarding the 

requested amendment. 

Ryan A. Koverman 

President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-18-1999
<CASH>                                           5,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,053
<PP&E>                                         121,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 370,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,379
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   370,378
<SALES>                                        112,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,353
<CGS>                                           37,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,671)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Great East Bottles & Drinks (China) Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s 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 result of operations of the Company for the period certified.

 

 

Signed on this July 12, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07068]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on 
Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at 
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to 
the public via webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  1. The Commission will consider whether to 
propose rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the 
registration and regulation of security-based swap execution facilities 
(``SBSEFs'') and related matters. The proposed rules would also address 
the cross-border application of registration and execution requirements 
for security-based swaps. Additionally, the Commission will consider 
whether to propose rules designed to mitigate conflicts of interest at 
SBSEFs and national securities exchanges that trade security-based 
swaps.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: March 30, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07068 Filed 3-30-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2125]


Reorganization and Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 15 (Expansion 
of Service Area and New Magnet Site) Under Alternative Site Framework, 
Kansas City, Missouri

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Board to grant to qualified 
corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or 
adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 
CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of 
zones;
    Whereas, the Greater Kansas City Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee 
of Foreign-Trade Zone 15, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ 
Docket B-63-2021, docketed September 14, 2021) for authority to expand 
the service area of the zone to include Holt County, as described in 
the application, and to include a new magnet site (proposed Site 24) in 
Holt County, adjacent to the Kansas City Customs and Border Protection 
port of entry;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (86 FR 52127, September 20, 2021) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 15 to expand the service area and 
to include a new magnet site under the ASF is approved, subject to the 
FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the 
Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an 
ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority 
for Site 24 is not activated within the initial seven years from the 
month of approval.

    Dated: March 26, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 
Chairperson, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-06779 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jessica SANTIAGO, Unit Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15834

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 25, 2018

Michael B. Williams, Pro Se'

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *324§ 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action' before the named defendant had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 4), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and' 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as.provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Brad Stephen FRANCIS; Christine Carol Francis Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-2070

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 28, 2017

Filed: January 3, 2018

Brad Stephen Francis, Pro Se

Christine Carol Francis, Pro Se

Bruce R. Ellisen, Rachel Ida Wollitzer, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gregory Louis Mokodean, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Civil Trial Section, Central Region, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Brad and Christine Francis appeal from the order of the District Court1 dismissing their civil suit challenging their liability for federal taxes and penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.

After careful review, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 35

Expressing the opposition of the Congress to President Clinton’s planned

deployment of United States ground forces to Bosnia.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. NICKLES, Mr.

KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. COATS, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr.

FRIST, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELMS, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr.

THURMOND) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and not agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the opposition of the Congress to President Clinton’s planned deployment of United States ground forces

to Bosnia.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE DEPLOY4 MENT DECISION.

5 The Congress opposes President Clinton’s decision to

6 deploy United States military ground forces into the Re7 public of Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the Gen-
2

•SCON 35 IS

1 eral Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and

2 Herzegovina and its associated annexes.

3 SEC. 2. EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES MILI4 TARY PERSONNEL WHO ARE DEPLOYED.

5 The Congress strongly supports the United States

6 military personnel who may be ordered by the President

7 to implement the General Framework Agreement for

8 Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated an9 nexes.

10 SEC. 3. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.

11 The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy

12 of this concurrent resolution to the President.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  ------------

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of International
Microcomputer Software, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that (i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended December 31,
2002, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Quarterly Report"), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: February 11, 2003

By: /s/ Martin Wade, III
Martin Wade, III
Director & Chief Executive Officer




                                       24
<PAGE>
No. 11-1350.

#### Ruiz *v.*Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.