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



EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TCI Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stephen
P. DeSantis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.

|                      |  |     |  |                                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: August 19, 2002 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen P. DeSantis                    
|                      |  |     |  |                                            
|                      |  |     |  | Stephen P. DeSantis
Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-7606.

#### Scott John Travaline, Petitioner v. Robin Travaline.

559 U.S. 1046, 130 S. Ct. 2086,

176 L. Ed. 2d 432,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2911.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1154, 130 S. Ct. 1153, 175 L. Ed. 2d 983, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 654.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 

August 16, 2013 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Steven Stokes, Acting Technical Director 

FROM: Jonathan Plaue, DNFSB Site Representative 

SUBJECT: LLNL Activity Report for Week Ending August 16, 2013 

The Site Representative supported oversight activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

this week. This report is filed for continuity purposes only.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4937 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4937

 To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 
    for continuity of coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare 
  prescription drug plans for full-benefit dual eligible individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2006

  Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 
    for continuity of coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare 
  prescription drug plans for full-benefit dual eligible individuals.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICARE CONTINUITY OF COVERAGE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR 
              FULL-BENEFIT DUAL ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-102(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``subject to paragraph 
        (6),'' after ``part C''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Continuation of coverage for full-benefit dual 
        eligible individuals transitioning from medicaid coverage.--In 
        the case of an individual who, as of date the individual is 
        first enrolled under a prescription drug plan under this part 
        (or an MA-PD plan under part D), is a full-benefit dual 
        eligible individual and is being provided medical assistance 
        for a prescription drug or biological under title XIX that may 
        be covered as a covered part D drug under this part, qualified 
        prescription drug coverage must include coverage for such drug 
        without the application of coverage limitations, such as prior 
        authorization or quantity limits, unless a prescribing 
        physician certifies that the coverage of such drug is not 
        medically necessary, regardless of whether the individual 
        subsequently remains a full-benefit dual eligible 
        individual.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as if included in the enactment of Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5036 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require the disclosure 

of the original source of funds made payable to a lobbyist who is subcontracted to engage in lobbying activities on behalf of a third person 

or entity, and the disclosure of the identity of that third person or 

entity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2006 

Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require 

the disclosure of the original source of funds made payable to a lobbyist who is subcontracted to engage in 

lobbying activities on behalf of a third person or entity, 

and the disclosure of the identity of that third person 

or entity. 

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 ‘‘Full Disclosure in Lob5 bying Act’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5036 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REGARDING LOBBY2 ISTS THAT ARE SUBCONTRACTORS. 

3 Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

4 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

6 the semicolon; 

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and 

8 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(5) in the case of a registrant that was re11 tained by another person or entity to engage in lob12 bying activities on behalf of a third person or enti13 ty— 

14 ‘‘(A) the name, address, and principal 

15 place of business of the other person or entity 

16 that retained the registrant; 

17 ‘‘(B) the name, address, and principal 

18 place of business of the third person or entity 

19 on whose behalf the lobbying activities were 

20 performed; and 

21 ‘‘(C) the amount of funds paid, during the 

22 semiannual reporting period, to the other per23 son or entity identified under subparagraph 

24 (A), and to the registrant, for lobbying activi25 ties on behalf of the third person or entity iden26 tified under subparagraph (B).’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5036 IH 

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

3 respect to the first semiannual reporting period under sec4 tion 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 that begins 

5 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 

6 to each such semiannual period thereafter. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
FIGURE 1. Percentage of children aged < 6 years participating* in a grantee†

immunization information system-- United States and six cities §, 2005

No Report

0-33%

34-66%

67-94%

95-100%

Source: CY2005 IISAR

*Participation is defined as 

a child having two or more 

vaccinations recorded in an 

immunization information 

system.

†Grantees include 50 states, 

five cities and the District 

of Columbia, funded under 

section 317b of the Public 

Health Service Act.

§Chicago, Illinois (34%-

66%); District of Columbia 

(67%–94%); Houston, 

Texas (34%–66%); New 

York City, New York 

(95%–100%); Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania (95%–100%); 

San Antonio, Texas (67%–

94%).

National Coverage: 56%
No. 09-9069.

#### George Thomas Wilkerson, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

559 U.S. 1074, 130 S. Ct. 2104,

176 L. Ed. 2d 734,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3379.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied.

Same case below, 363 N.C. 382, 683 S.E.2d 174.
No. 1,

No. 2,

No. 3,

Original.

Original.

Original.

#### State of Wisconsin, et al., Plaintiffs v. State of Illinois and Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, et al. State of Michigan, Plaintiff v. State of Illinois and Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, et al. State of New York, Plaintiff v. State of Illinois and Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, et al.

559 U.S. 1091, 130 S. Ct. 2397,

176 L. Ed. 2d 765,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3562.

April 26, 2010.

Motion of Michigan to reopen and for a supplemental decree de*766nied. The alternative motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.
No. 09-5490.

#### Terry Middleton, Petitioner v. Deborah Schult, Warden.

559 U.S. 1033, 130 S. Ct. 1947,

176 L. Ed. 2d 406,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2437.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 1012, 175 L. Ed. 2d 635, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 9062.
No. 09-8620.

#### Scott Goodwin-Bey, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 961, 130 S. Ct. 1563,

176 L. Ed. 2d 148,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1197.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*149Same case below, 584 F.3d 1117.
No. 09-7794.

#### Lonnie Ramey, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 942, 130 S. Ct. 1508,

176 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1285.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 21 So. 3d 80.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2109

___________ In re: Robert Hatcher; * Ruth Ann Hatcher, * * Debtors. * *

------------------------------------------ * * Robert Hatcher; Ruth Ann Hatcher, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel * U.S. Trustee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Trustee-Appellee, * * Allison Financial Corporation, * * Creditor-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 9, 1999 Filed: March 17, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________1 The Honorable Russell J. Hill, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- PER CURIAM. RobertE. Hatcher and Ruth Ann Hatcher appeal from a final order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit affirming the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court 1 for the Southern District of Iowa dismissing their Chapter 11 case for cause pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). Inre Hatcher , 218 B.R. 441 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998), aff’g No. 96-42248-WH (Bankr. S.D. Iowa July 21, 1997).
For reversal, appellants argue that the bankruptcy appellate panel erred in holding that they could not bring a fraudulent conveyance action based upon state la w, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b), and thereby avoid their prior real estate transaction, regardless of their actions in the transaction and adverse state court judgments. In addition, appellants argue that the bankruptcy appellate panel erred in holding that they filed their Chapter 11 petition in bad faith.
The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the bankruptcy appellate panel. Wehave carefully reviewed the record and affirm the order of the bankruptcy app ellate panel. We agree that claim preclusion barred litigation in bankruptcy of appellants’ claim that the transfer of their real estate property to Allison Financial Corp. constituted a fraudulent conveyance under Iowa state law. See 218 B.R. at 446-47. Appellants’ fraudulent conveyance claim is identical to the reformation, fraudulent misrepresentation and breachof fiduciary duty claims which they raised andlitigated unsuccessfully against Allison Financial Corp. and other defendants in the Iowa state courts. See Hatcher v. Allison Financial Corp. , No. 66958 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Jan. 13, 1995), aff’d , Nos. 6-139 & 95-246 (Iowa Ct. App. July 26, 1996), review denied , No. 95-246 (Iowa Oct. 4, 1996) (order).-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the bankruptcy appellate panel. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**
**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
**FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
     I, Bahman Atefi, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alion Science and TechnologyCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  [Reserved]  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 

 

     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: February 15, 2005      By: /s/ Bahman Atefi     Name: Bahman Atefi  Title: Chief Executive Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4648 

To prohibit assistance to Lebanon unless the Government of Lebanon 

extradites Mohammed Ali Hammadi to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2005 

Mr. FOSSELLA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit assistance to Lebanon unless the Government 

of Lebanon extradites Mohammed Ali Hammadi to the 

United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) On June 14, 1985, terrorists hijacked 

6 United States jetliner TWA Flight 847 en route 

7 from Athens to Rome. 
2 

•HR 4648 IH 

1 (2) During the 17-day hijacking, one of the ter2 rorists, Mohammed Ali Hammadi, brutally tortured 

3 and killed United States Navy diver Robert Dean 

4 Stethem aboard the United States jetliner. 

5 (3) In 1987, Mohammed Ali Hammadi was ar6 rested in Frankfurt, Germany. He was tried and 

7 convicted of the murder of United States Navy diver 

8 Robert Dean Stethem and sentenced to life impris9 onment. 

10 (4) On December 20, 2005, the Government of 

11 Germany released Mohammed Ali Hammadi and al12 lowed him to return to his native Lebanon. 

13 (5) On December 21, 2005, officials at the 

14 United States Departments of Justice and State in15 dicated that they would seek the extradition of Mo16 hammed Ali Hammadi to the United States so he 

17 could be tried for his role in the hijacking of TWA 

18 Flight 847, including the murder of United States 

19 Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem. 

20 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON. 

21 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi22 sion of law, assistance may not be provided to Lebanon 

23 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act unless 

24 the President certifies to Congress that the Government 
3 

•HR 4648 IH 

1 of Lebanon has extradited Mohammed Ali Hammadi to 

2 the United States. 

3 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘assist4 ance’’— 

5 (1) means assistance in the form of a grant, 

6 concessional sale, guaranty, insurance, or by any 

7 other means on terms more favorable than is gen8 erally available in the applicable market, whether in 

9 the form of a loan, lease, credit, debt relief, or other10 wise, including subsidies for exports to Lebanon and 

11 favorable tariff treatment of articles that are the 

12 growth, product, or manufacture of Lebanon; and 

13 (2) does not include— 

14 (A) assistance of the type authorized under 

15 chapter 9 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 

16 Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; relating 

17 to international disaster assistance); and 

18 (B) assistance that involves the provision 

19 of food (including monetization of food) or med20 icine. 

Æ
a10a58.htm




Exhibit 10(a)58


SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)







Certificate of Amendment







Amendment No. 1


 

 







THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this 15th day of December, 2010, but made effective  December 30, 2010, constitutes the First Amendment of the Supplemental Retirement Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”).







All capitalized terms used in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan unless otherwise herein defined.







Pursuant to Section 10.01 of the Plan and in accordance with the Resolutions of the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors adopted at its meeting of December 2, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of the Plan preamble to read as follows:












The Plan is now hereby amended effective December 30, 2010, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors of Entergy at its meeting held on December 2, 2010, authorizing amendments to the Plan in order to address certain market practices, external governance concerns, emerging trends and cost controls by increasing the change in ownership threshold now required in Subsection 1.06(a) to trigger one of the events constituting a Change in Control event.








	
2.  

	
Subsection 1.06(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:













	
(a)  

	
the purchase or other acquisition by any person, entity or group of persons, acting in concert within the meaning of Subsections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act"), or any comparable successor provisions, of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Act) of thirty percent (30%) or more of either the shares of common stock outstanding immediately following such acquisition or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation's voting securities entitled to vote generally and outstanding immediately following such acquisition, other than any such purchase or acquisition in connection with a Non-CIC Merger (defined in Subsection (b) below);


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Personnel Committee has caused this First Amendment to the Supplemental Retirement Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day, month, and year above set forth, but effective December 30, 2010.












ENTERGY CORPORATION


PERSONNEL COMMITTEE


through the undersigned duly authorized representative







/s/ Terry R. Seamons


TERRY R. SEAMONS


Senior Vice-President,


        Human Resources and Administration
#### Hugh T. Montgomery and James E. Montgomery, Late Co-partners Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of H. T. Montgomery & Son, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Crenshaw Bros. Seed Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 1, 1926.

*Knight, Thomson & Turner,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*McKay, Withers & Ramsey,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— -This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2017018EN.01002401.xml

| 19.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/24

---

Special Report No 34/2016

‘Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain’

(2017/C 18/08)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 34/2016 ‘Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---