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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8734 

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to prohibit the 

imposition of a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of the payment 

of any award or settlement in connection with a violation of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. STEWART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to 

prohibit the imposition of a nondisclosure agreement as 

a condition of the payment of any award or settlement 

in connection with a violation of such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Victims’ Voice and 

5 Transparency Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8734 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF NONDISCLOSURE 

2 AGREEMENT AS CONDITION OF AWARD OR 

3 SETTLEMENT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL AC4 COUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 401 of the Congressional 

6 Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1401) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(h) PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF NONDISCLOSURE

9 AGREEMENTS.—A nondisclosure agreement may not be 

10 imposed on any party as a condition of the payment of 

11 any award or settlement in connection with a violation of 

12 part A of title II.’’. 

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

14 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to awards and set15 tlements paid in connection with the Congressional Ac16 countability Act of 1995 on or after the date of the enact17 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MCDERMOTT
INCORPORATED'S JUNE 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          38,007
<SECURITIES>                                        97
<RECEIVABLES>                                  341,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,466
<INVENTORY>                                    294,359
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               991,985
<PP&E>                                         531,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 320,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,036,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          940,150
<BONDS>                                        352,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          166,461
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,036,757
<SALES>                                        453,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               453,180
<CGS>                                          427,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  427,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,818
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 30, 2002 of ACR Group, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alex
Trevino, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                           /s/ Alex Trevino, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Alex Trevino, Jr.
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           January 14, 2003
# ~ 

# Viaveld

' March 12, 2015 Regina Hoffman 1001 81unt Parkway Charles City, IA 50616 Cell: 641-330-9776 U.S. Department of Transportation 

### Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590



### Re: 

### Amendment to Exemptio n 11170 issued 

### pursuant_to

. Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and

. _ _ __._.. - _ 14 C.F., R. Part 11_in Regufato 

### ry Docket No. FAA-2014-0824 , Dear Madam or Sir, 

### Viafeld, a cooperative ("Viafield"), was issued an Exemption numbered 11170 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting precision agriculture operations. Viafield herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional model of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fuliy complies with the conditions of the Exemption. 

### Viafield wishes to operate the Max Flight copter-type (quadcopter) UAV, rnanufactured by Crop Copter in Illinois, under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Submitted as 

### confidential documents are the Crop Copter Manual, Volume 1, Crop Copter Pre-Flight Checklist, and Max Flight specifications (Viafield requests the FAA treat these documents as proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and not include them in the public docket). AII operations of the 

### additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. Viafield believes that the addition of the Max Flight is within the public's interest as it would offer additional opportunities in precision agriculture while reducing the risk to persons and property inherent in the use of manned aircraft. It would also facilitate economic growth and agricultural sustainability by helping to maximize crop yields. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of a supplementary unmanned aerial system, Viafield respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. 

### Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Yours sincerely, 

# Zt r-- ~ i- ,

~ Appler Regina Hoffman Viafield Chief Executive Officer Viafield Agronomy Account Relationship Manager
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-1 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2015, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-1 and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report 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 the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName: Jennifer M. DavisTitle: Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName: Rich MorrinTitle: Chief Operating OfficerDate: March 29, 2016
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  DTRA Leadership             
  -  DTRA History             
  -  Mission             
  -  Strategic Initiatives             
  -  Foreign Malign Influence             
  -  Agency Overview Brief (pdf)             
  -  Agency Financial Report 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Your Civilian Career             
  -  Your Military Career             
  -  Welcome Aboard             
  -  Diversity and Inclusion 
-  Business    -  DTRA Contract Award Data             
  -  Office of Small Business             
  -  Mentor Protege Program 
-  News & Media    -  Press Center 
-  Contact Us		 
-  Joint Operations Center		 

# Foreign Malign Influence Fact Sheets

Aug. 24, 2023

 U.S. State Department Disarming Disinformation Site 

                                Disinformation is one of the Kremlin’s most important and far-reaching weapons. Russia has operationalized the concept of perpetual adversarial competition in the information environment by encouraging the development of a disinformation and propaganda ecosystem.            

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Forest Gant v. State.

152 So. 710.

Division A.

Opinion Filed February 19, 1934.

*Philip D. Beall,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Davis, C. J.

— Plaintiff in error, Forest Gant, was tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to three years in the State prison for cattle stealing. The first count of the information on which Gant was convicted charged the larceny of a brown bull yearling, the property of Ransom Ard.

On a search by officers of defendant’s premises, the hide of a butchered animal answering the description of the one charged as having been stolen, and identified as such, was found buried, together with hides of other animals appar*24ently also stolen. This circumstance, considered in connection with other testimony of a direct and positive character, clearly pointing to the defendant’s guilt, is sufficient to sustain the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, which is of a more convincing character than that held inadequate in Haag v. State, 111 Fla. 781, 149 Sou. Rep. 566, and cases cited.

Nor did the trial court err in allowing in evidence testimony of the officers regarding the secreted cowhides found buried in Forest Gant’s premises. There was a legal predicate therefor offered, and apparently found to be the truth of the circumstance by the trial judge, to the effect that the finding of the buried hides was the result of a voluntary and express' challenge by the defendant inviting the officers to search his premises in order to confirm his protestations that he had nothing on them of a suspicious nature, tending to show him to be a cattle thief. Carlton v. State, 111 Fla. 777, 149 Sou. Rep. 767.

It follows that there being no error, the judgment is to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Presidential Documents

9349

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 41

Monday, March 3, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Order of February 26, 1997

Designation Under Executive Order 12958

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.4 of Executive Order 12958 of April

17, 1995, entitled ‘‘Classified National Security Information,’’ I hereby designate the following additional official to classify information originally

as ‘‘Top Secret’’:

The Chair, President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection.

The Chair of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection,

established under Executive Order 13010 of July 15, 1996, shall exercise

the authority to classify information originally as ‘‘Top Secret’’ during the

existence of the Commission.

Any delegation of this authority shall be in accordance with section 1.4(c)

of Executive Order 12958.

This order shall be published in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 26, 1997. [FR Doc. 97–5308

Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
No. 11-10496.

#### Aguilar-Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keon Kervin JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20425 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Keon Kervin Jackson, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Keon Kervin Jackson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jackson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant To Section 1350 Of Chapter 63 Of 18 U.S.C.
As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002/SEC Rule 13a-14(b)
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
 Dated: May 15, 2006
    
    /s/ Michael K. GreenMichael K. GreenChief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer
#### Edward Vincent RAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamilah A. JEFFERSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16040

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants engaged in misconduct during the litigation of a separate civil case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against defendant Jefferson on the basis of absolute immunity because Ray failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Jefferson’s actions were not “intimately associated with the judicial phase[] of .., litigation.” *Fry v. Melaragno,*939 F.2d 832, 836-38 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining the application of absolute immunity to government attorneys in civil trials).

The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against defendant McGee because Ray failed to allege facts sufficient to show McGee personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. *See Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against the City of Oakland *886because Ray failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a policy or custom of the City caused his alleged injury. *See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[A] municipality may not be held liable for a § 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a policy or custom led to the plaintiffs injury,” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*687 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ray’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2008-10

(Electrical Fast Transient) 

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Section 4.1.2.6 

2005 VVSG Vol. II, Section 4.8 

Date: 

August 28, 2008 

Question: 

Why does the 2005 VVSG Volume I, Section 4.1.2.6(c) note that the repetition rate for 

all transient pulses will be 100kHz, as required by IEC 61000-4-4 (2004-02), but Volume 

II , Section 4.8 sites IEC 61000-4-4 (1995-01) which actually requires testing at 5 kHz? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Section 4.1.2.6, Electrical Fast Transient 

2005 VVSG Vol. I Section 4.8, Other Environmental Tests 

Background: 

4.1.2.6 Electrical Fast Transient 

Vote scanning and counting equipment for paper-based systems, and all DRE equipment, 

shall be able to withstand, without disruption of normal operation or loss of data, 

electrical fast transients of: 

a. + 2 kV and - 2 kV on External Power lines (both AC and DC) 

b. + 1 kV and - 1 kV on Input/Output lines (signal, data, and control lines) longer 

than 3 

meters 

c. Repetition Rate for all transient pulses will be 100 kHz 

4.8 Other Environmental Tests 

This section addresses a range of tests for all voting system equipment, including 

equipment for both precinct count and central count systems. 

The test for electrical fast transient protection shall be conducted in compliance 

with the test specified in IEC 61000-4-4 (1995-01). 
Conclusion: 

The Standard specified in Volume II Section 4.8 is mistakenly cited as IEC 61000-4-4 

(1995-01), and should instead properly be cited as IEC 61000-4-4 (2004-07) Ed. 2.0 

which supports the 100 kHz repetition rate for all transient pulses specified in Volume I, 

Section 4.1.2.6(c). 

Effective Date: 

Upon publication. 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,923,643
<SECURITIES>                                   354,630
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,238,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,582
<INVENTORY>                                    696,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,202,582
<PP&E>                                       1,950,191
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,759,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,448,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,122,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,552
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,535,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,448,117
<SALES>                                      3,306,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,306,307
<CGS>                                        2,034,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,034,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               631,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,852
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (40,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (40,965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,965)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three month period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Charles J. DeMory, Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Telestone Technologies Corporation, and will be retained by Telestone Technologies Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







/s/   Charles J. DeMory

Charles J. DeMory, Chief Executive Officer,

President, Director and Principal Executive

Officer

Date:  August 31, 2004