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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5446 

To require the Attorney General to review foreign forms of identification, 

including consular identification cards and foreign passports without a 

valid visa, to establish a valid and secure form of identification, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2016 

Mr. VEASEY (for himself, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Mr. POLIS) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To require the Attorney General to review foreign forms 

of identification, including consular identification cards 

and foreign passports without a valid visa, to establish 

a valid and secure form of identification, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreign ID Review 

5 Act of 2016’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5446 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVIEW OF FOREIGN IDENTIFICATION. 

2 The Attorney General shall, not later than 270 days 

3 after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years 

4 thereafter, review all forms of identification issued to for5 eign nationals within the United States by the Govern6 ments of Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and 

7 Honduras, including identifications issued by consular of8 ficers and foreign passports issued at consular offices, to 

9 determine if such forms of identification are sufficiently 

10 secure to verify the identity of the bearer of the form of 

11 identification for purposes including opening an account 

12 with an accredited financial institution and obtaining any 

13 benefit that the child of such bearer is lawfully entitled 

14 to. 

15 SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

16 Not later than 90 days after the completion of the 

17 review under section 2, the Attorney General shall submit 

18 to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep19 resentatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

20 Senate a report that includes the results of such review. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Seasonal H2O and CO2 ice cycles at the Mars Phoenix landing site: 1. Prelanding CRISM and HiRISE observations      

      April 27, 2010    

The condensation, evolution, and sublimation of seasonal water and carbon dioxide ices were characterized at the Mars Phoenix landing site from Martian northern midsummer to midspring (Ls ∼ 142° – Ls ∼ 60°) for the year prior to the Phoenix landing on 25 May 2008. Ice relative abundances and grain sizes were estimated using data from the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars and High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment aboard Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a nonlinear mixing model. Water ice first appeared at the Phoenix landing site during the afternoon in late summer (Ls ∼ 167°) as an optically thin layer on top of soil. CO2 ice appeared after the fall equinox. By late winter (Ls∼ 344°), the site was covered by relatively pure CO2 ice (∼30 cm thick), with a small amount of ∼100 μm diameter water ice and soil. As spring progressed, CO2 ice grain sizes gradually decreased, a change interpreted to result from granulation during sublimation losses. The combined effect of CO2 sublimation and decreasing H2O ice grain sizes allowed H2O ice to dominate spectra during the spring and significantly brightened the surface. CO2 ice disappeared by early spring (Ls ∼ 34°) and H2O ice by midspring (Ls ∼ 59°). Spring defrosting was not uniform and occurred more rapidly over the centers of polygons and geomorphic units with relatively higher thermal inertia values.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

####             Roger N Clark (Former Employee)          

##### Scientist Emeritus

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

Spectroscopy Lab

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

## Related Content

####             Roger N Clark (Former Employee)          

##### Scientist Emeritus

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

Spectroscopy Lab

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014

### Explore Search

                  - Mars

View All **
November 17, 2014 

Department of Transportation 

Aviation Consumer Protection 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Sixth Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, 

Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0087 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) and the Information Technology 

Industry Council (“ITI”) jointly submit this letter in response to the above referenced meeting.1

 

TIA and ITA appreciate the Advisory Committee’s attention to potential consumer protection 

issues related to the use of mobile wireless devices for voice calls on aircraft. 

TIA and ITI are pleased that all speakers on this issue clarified that there are no consumer 

protection concerns associated with the use of mobile devices onboard aircraft for “quiet” 

applications (e.g., SMS and data/email), and that the Department of Transportation’s inquiry is 

limited to the impact of voice calls only. TIA and ITI support the remarks by Kevin Rogers, 

CEO of AeroMobile, regarding in-flight use of mobile devices onboard foreign airlines. Among 

other things, Mr. Rogers presented information establishing that many airlines have chosen to 

disable voice service and, for airlines that choose to offer voice (including airlines flying 

regularly to and from the United States that serve a large percentage of U.S. passengers), the use 

of mobile voice applications has had no adverse effects on airline operations or passengers. 

Accordingly, the Department need not adopt a ban on in-flight mobile voice onboard U.S. 

airlines. Rather than an a priori ban that limits airline and consumer choice, the Department 

should permit U.S. airlines to retain the choice of offering applications such as text, mobile data, 

and voice that they determine best suit their passengers’ needs. The introduction of new in-flight 

connectivity applications, including in-flight use of mobile devices as an alternative to WiFibased offerings, will enhance competition in the in-flight connectivity market and the passenger 

experience onboard aircraft. 

Please contact Danielle Coffey (dcoffey@tiaonline.org) or Vince Jesaitis (vjesaitis@itic.org) 

with any questions regarding this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Telecommunications Industry Association Information Technology Industry Council 

1320 N. Court House Road Suite 200 1101 K Street, N.W. Suite 610 

Arlington, VA 22201 Washington, D.C. 20005 

 

1

 TIA and ITI jointly filed comments in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking regarding the use of mobile wireless devices for voice calls on aircraft. See Joint 

Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association and The Information Technology 

Industry Council, Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0002, RIN No. 2105-AE30 (Apr. 7, 2014).
Jermaine SALERY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1978

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1 

### Whalen, Marilyn

From: Osmond, Kathleen <kosmond@honolulu.gov> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:59 PM To: RedHill Subject: Red Hill Aquifer

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Aloha;

There is no rationale in keeping the fuel supply in and around the aquifer at Red Hill on Oahu.

Any potential or likely contamination of precious drinking water is far and away more important than saving the US Government money by allowing fuel to be stored in a potentially hazardous locati on. Past tests have shown contamination and there is simply no way to guarantee the wate r will be kept safe for human consumption.

The cost to the people of Hawaii is far more than any cost to the military. Our water is precious and so are our people, who rely on clean, safe water.

Mahalo.

Kathleen Osmond 808 291-4946
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - california(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - (-)maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - wisconsin(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(1)

staff profileThomas G Huntington, Ph.D.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater

Filters

              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - (-)maryland(3)
              - new jersey(1)
              - virginia(15)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        March 22, 2007        PubTalk 3/2007 — Impact!

publication        August 22, 2004        The Chesapeake Bay Crater: Geology and geophysics of a Late Eocene submarine impact structure

publication        January 1, 1996        Impact origin of the Chesapeake Bay structure and the source of the North American tektites
Digna M. CUESTA, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mark MOLINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0257

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2020132EN.01000201.xml

| 23.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9626 — PKN Orlen/Energa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 132/02)

On 31 March 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9626. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9626. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 24.1
------------




                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints Graham Taylor, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
agent with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his
name and/or his behalf, to do any and all acts and things and to execute any and
all instruments which said attorney-in-fact and agent may deem necessary or
advisable to enable Magnus International Resources Inc. to comply with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and any rules,
regulations or requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission in respect
thereof, including, without limitation, the power and authority to sign his name
in any and all capacities (including his capacity as a Director and/or Officer
of Magnus International Resources Inc.) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Magnus International Resources Inc. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 and
the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and
agent, or any substitute or substitutes for him, shall lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents on the dates
stated.

            Signature                       Title                   Date
            ---------                       -----                   ----

/s/ Mark Demmons
------------------------
Mark Demmons                         Director               November 10, 2004

/s/ Raymond Turner
------------------------
Raymond Turner                       Director               November 10, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5451 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5451

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to exempt certain recipients of 
    Department of Agriculture conservation assistance from certain 
            reporting requirements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2016

  Ms. Kuster (for herself and Mr. Crawford) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 the Food Security Act of 1985 to exempt certain recipients of 
    Department of Agriculture conservation assistance from certain 
            reporting requirements, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Access to Farm 
Conservation Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
              CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE FROM CERTAIN REPORTING 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1244 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(m) Exemption From Certain Reporting Requirements.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal Funding 
        Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
        282; 31 U.S.C. 6101 note), the requirements of parts 25 and 170 
        of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor 
        regulations, shall not apply with respect to assistance 
        received by an exempted producer from the Secretary acting 
        through the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
            ``(2) Exempted producer defined.--In this subsection, the 
        term `exempted producer' means--
                    ``(A) a person or entity that receives in a fiscal 
                year $450,000 or less under this title; or
                    ``(B) an Indian tribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
Frank Freeman RUIZ, Appellant, v. Annie FREEMAN, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 25, 2018

Frank Freeman Ruiz, in proper person.

ADR Miami LLC, and Juan Ramirez, Jr., for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*328Affirmed. *Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
Kwame BENNETT v. Michael MOSCONA, St. John the Baptist Parish Council, and American Alternative Insurance Corporation

NO. 2018-CC-1086

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Exhibit








FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
GOODRICH PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the “First Amendment”) to the Goodrich Petroleum Corporation Management Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is effective December 8, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), and is made by Goodrich Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”).  
W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Company previously adopted the Plan, under which the Company is authorized to grant equity-based incentive awards to employees and service providers of the Company and its subsidiaries and certain members of the board of directors (“Board”) of the Company; 
WHEREAS, Sections 4(a) and 7 of the Plan provides that any committee designated by the Board to administer the Plan (the “Committee”) will determine the number of shares of Company common stock (“Shares”) to be granted under the Plan following the initial grant of Shares under the Plan; and 


WHEREAS, Section 4(a) provides that the “Committee will determine the number of additional Shares to be granted after the Effective Date to Employees, Consultants and Directors as part of the Company’s long term incentive plan pursuant to the Plan”; and 


WHEREAS, Section 7 of the Plan provides that the “Board or the Committee may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or terminate grants made under the Plan after the Effective Date without the consent of any stockholder, Participant, other holder or beneficiary of an Award, or other Person”; and 


WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that it is desirable to amend the Plan in the manner contemplated hereby.  


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as of the Effective Date as set forth below.  


1.      Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following: 


Effective as of December 8, 2016, 1,000,000 additional Shares are reserved and available for delivery with respect to Awards.


2.      Except as set forth above, the Plan shall continue to read in its current state.  


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]


    
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the execution of this First Amendment by its duly authorized officer, effective as of the Effective Date.  




GOODRICH PETROLEUM CORPORATION




By:    /s/ Michael J. Killelea
Michael J. Killelea
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
    
Date:    January 12, 2017
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      John Mueller, Chief Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
      Title 18 of the United States Code that:




(1)
      the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period
      ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as an
      exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Dated:
                June 3, 2007
            
            By:
            /s/
                John MuellerJohn
                Mueller
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADDED
      BY


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of
      FPB Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Nancy E. Aumack,
      Chief Financial Officer of FPB Bancorp, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350, as added by §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.
            To
                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                in
                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of First Peoples Bank as of and for the period covered by the
                report.

















Date:                      March
      12,
      2008                                                                By:
/s/  Nancy E.
      Aumack


Nancy
      E. Aumack,


Principal Financial Officer
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A., d/b/a EMAS Spine & Brain Specialists a/a/o Phyllis Easley, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4784

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 27, 2018

Michael C. Clarke, Betsy Ellwanger Gallagher, and Danielle M. Lutyk of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.

Adam Saben of Shuster & Saben, LLC, Jacksonville, and Chad A. Barr of the Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Neurology Partners, P.A., d/b/a EMAS Spine & Brain Specialists a/a/o Roderick A. Williams* , No. 1D18-1350, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 4042463 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 24, 2018) ; *Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Neurology Partners, P.A., d/b/a EMAS Spine & Brain Specialists a/a/o Rachel K. Kopp* , No. 1D18-1351, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 4042461 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 24, 2018).

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Jeremy MCARTHUR Thomas, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3034

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-118

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00022-CV

M.C., Individually and as Next Friend of J.C., a Minor; E.P., Individually

and as Next Friend of A.P., a Minor;
and each on behalf of the Estate of J.G., Decedent

v.

Pantego Camp Thurman, Inc. §

§

§

§ From the 17th District Court

of Tarrant County (017-269875-13)

February 22, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants sha ll pay all of the costs of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Just ice Bonnie Sudderth
David RENCZKOWSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.