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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8660 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8660

To direct the Secretary of Labor to modify regulations to allow the use 
    of performance benchmarks in the case of designated investment 
                 alternatives, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2020

  Mr. Evans introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Labor to modify regulations to allow the use 
    of performance benchmarks in the case of designated investment 
                 alternatives, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS FOR ASSET ALLOCATION FUNDS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor (or the Secretary's 
delegate) shall modify the regulations under section 404 of the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104) to 
provide that, in the case of a designated investment alternative which 
contains a mix of asset classes, a plan administrator may, but is not 
required to, use a benchmark which is a blend of different broad-based 
securities market indices if--
            (1) the blend is reasonably representative of the asset 
        class holdings of the designated investment alternative;
            (2) for purposes of determining the blend's returns for 1-, 
        5-, and 10-calendar-year periods (or for the life of the 
        alternative, if shorter), the blend is modified at least once 
        per year to reflect changes in the asset class holdings of the 
        designated investment alternative;
            (3) the blend is furnished to participants and 
        beneficiaries in a manner that is reasonably designed to be 
        understandable and helpful; and
            (4) each securities market index which is used for an 
        associated asset class would separately satisfy the 
        requirements of such regulations for such asset class.
    (b) Study.--Not later than December 31, 2021, the Secretary of 
Labor (or the Secretary's delegate) shall deliver a report to the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor of the House of 
Representatives and the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate regarding the effectiveness of the 
benchmarking requirements under section 2550.404a-5 of title 29, Code 
of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 3.1
                                                                     -----------

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                       GOLDEN RIVER RESOURCES CORPORATION
               (Under section 242 of the General Corporation Law)

     Golden  River  Resources  Corporation, a corporation organized and existing
under the General Corporations Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),
does  hereby  certify  that:

     FIRST:  The  name of the Corporation is Golden River Resources Corporation.

     SECOND:  The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended by striking out
Article "VIII" thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Article the following
provisions:

               "VIII.  The  corporation  shall be authorized to issue a total of
          four  hundred  million (400,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value
          $.0001  per  share."

     THIRD:     The  Amendment  to  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  herein
certified  has been duly adopted in accordance with the provision of Section 228
and  242  of  the  General  Corporations  Law  of  the  State  of  Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate this 14th
day  of  December,  2009.


                                              /S/ Peter Lee
                                              -------------
                                              Peter J. Lee
                                              Director and Secretary

                                       30
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 this Quarterly Report of Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended June 25, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Litowitz, Principal Accounting 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 9, 2005



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence R. Litowitz    
|Lawrence R. Litowitz        
|Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 10.24







 





AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”)
is made and entered into as of the 28th of August, 2013, by and among MTI Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Lender”) and First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc.,  a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”).


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	Borrower and Lender are parties to that certain Loan Agreement, dated on or about May 1, 2013 the “Loan Agreement”,
pursuant to which Lender made available to Borrower a line or credit in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for the
purpose of financing the general corporate purposes of the Borrower.



 


		B.	The Borrower has agreed to change the conversion rate and in consideration of such change the parties have agreed to continue
working under the Loan Agreement.



 


		C.	Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Loan Agreement.



 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
premises and covenants contained herein, Borrower and Lender do hereby agree to the following amendments to the Loan Agreement:


 


Section 1The sixth paragraph of the Loan Agreement
shall be deleted in its entirely and replaced with the following:


 


Holder, at its sole opinion, may convert
all or any portion of the principal (or added principal) into shares of First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (OCTBB: FCHS) that
the Maker has the right to have issued to the Holder (or its assigns), said common stock based upon a price of $.45 per share (the
“Shares”). Holder shall exercise its option by completing the form of Conversion Notice attached hereto as Exhibit
A. In connection with the issuance of the Shares, the Holder represents and warrants the following to the Maker:


 


Section 2Representations and Warranties.
Borrower makes all representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Agreement as of the date hereof and confirms that they
are true and correct in all material respects and that there is no Event of Default outstanding.


 


Section 3 Miscellaneous.


 


(a)               
Amendments. Neither this Amendment nor any provision hereof may be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated
orally, but only by instrument in writing signed by all of parties to this Amendment.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


(b)              
Counterparts; PDFs. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instruments. Delivery of an executed signature page by facsimile
or PDF shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender
have hereunto caused these presents to be executed on the first above written.


 





	LENDER	 	BORROWER
	 	 	 
	MTI Capital, LLC	 	First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


 













	 	 	 
	By: /s/ Frank Sarro	By: /s/ Christian C. Romandetti
	Name: Frank Sarro	 	Name: Christian C. Romandetti
	Title: Member	 	Title : Prsident
Exhibit 32.03

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY

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 South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
February 28, 2005

|/s/WILLIAM B. TIMMERMAN                                     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                            | 
|William B. Timmerman                                        | 
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director

---



QuickLinks
# C_2022424EN.01003801.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/38

---

Action brought on 5 September 2022 — QW v Commission

(Case T-550/22)

(2022/C 424/49)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: QW (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, advogadas)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final, of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (Madeira Free Zone — Scheme III); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final, of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (Madeira Free Zone — Scheme III);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law relates to the fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III, namely the source of the earnings and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law relates to the fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III, namely the source of the earnings and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.

| 2. | The second plea in law relates to the allegedly unjustified delay in the Commission’s response. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law relates to the allegedly unjustified delay in the Commission’s response.

| 3. | The third plea in law relates to the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law relates to the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law relates to the right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law relates to the right to a fair hearing.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law relates to the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law relates to the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | The sixth plea in law relates to the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth plea in law relates to the principle of legal certainty.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8738 

To withdraw certain Federal land in the San Bernardino National Forest 

in California from location, entry, and patent under mining laws, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2020 

Mr. COOK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain Federal land in the San Bernardino 

National Forest in California from location, entry, and 

patent under mining laws, 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. WITHDRAWAL OF SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL 

4 FOREST LAND FROM MINING LAWS. 

5 Subject to valid existing rights, the approximately 

6 3,055 acres of land general depicted as ‘‘Proposed With7 drawal’’ on the map titled ‘‘Proposed Mineral With8 drawallSan Bernardino National ForestlMountaintop 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8738 IH

1 Ranger District’’, and dated October 19, 2020, is hereby 

2 withdrawn from— 

3 (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and dis4 posal under the public land laws; 

5 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

6 laws; and 

7 (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral 

8 materials, and geothermal leasing laws. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00538-CV

In re Edward E. Ricks

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: September 22, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements of American Restaurant Partners,
L.P. at June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1685236
<SECURITIES>                                    112501
<RECEIVABLES>                                   656404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     263166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2478025
<PP&E>                                        29511617
<DEPRECIATION>                                13222322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22648167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4948191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3365839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22648167
<SALES>                                       18687975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              18687975
<CGS>                                          4756696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 17215979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1213385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1128508
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1128508
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1128508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
#### Mohammed Kafiullah KHAN; Feroza Kahn; Nazli Khan; Faizan Khan; Usman Khan, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-71747

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2018 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 09, 2018

William Frick, Law Office of William Frick, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners

Donald A. Couvillon, Esquire, Attorney, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent l

Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Muhammad Kafiullah Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen based on a change in country conditions in Pakistan after the date of Khan’s asylum hearing.1 Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm. *See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder,*778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion).

The BIA denied the motion to reopen primarily on the basis that the motion was based on “incidents or threats that occurred prior to [Khan’s] departure from Pakistan.” *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the petitioner must demonstrate “that circumstances have *changed*sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

*764The BIA also noted that the news articles submitted by Khan reported recent incidents of violence at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with no showing that these incidents relate in any way to Khan or his family members. *See id.*(concluding that evidence of general violence does not suffice to establish changed country conditions directed toward the group of which the petitioner is a member). We cannot say that this determination by the BIA was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. *See Martinez-Hernandez,*778 F.3d at 1088.

PETITION DENIED.

***

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

1

. The claims of Khan’s wife and children are derivative of his claim and succeed or fail accordingly.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (formerly Puget Sound Power & Light Company) on Form
S-3 (File Nos. 33-26818 and 333-65053) and Form S-8 (Nos.  33-27396,  333-23393,
333-41113 and 333-41157) of our report dated February 11, 1999, on our audits of
the consolidated  financial statements and financial statement schedule of Puget
Sound Energy,  Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,  and for each of the three
years in the period ended  December  31, 1998,  which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                                     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 15, 1999
Exhibit 10.7


 


Armada Acquisition Corp. I


2005 Market Street, Suite 3120


Philadelphia, PA 19103


 


_____, 2021


 


Armada Sponsor LLC


2005 Market Street, Suite 3120


Philadelphia, PA 19103


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement
that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration
Statement”) for the initial public offering of the securities (the “IPO”) of Armada Acquisition
Corp. I (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial
business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date
hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Armada Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”)
shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities and secretarial support as may be required by the Company from time
to time, situated at 2005 Market Street, Suite 3120, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company
shall pay the Sponsor the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.
The Sponsor hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside
in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) to be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”)
and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with
the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 


 


	 
	 	 
	 	 	 




    	 



    	 



    

	 	 
	 	
    Very truly yours,

     

    Armada Acquisition Corp. I

	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	Stephen P. Herbert
	 	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer and Chairman 


 


 


 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 
	Armada Sponsor LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name: Douglas M. Lurio	 	 
	 	Title: Managing Member 	 	 


 


 


 


[Signature Page to Administrative Services Agreement]