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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 834 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 834

Adjusting the special reserve percentage available to committees of the 
                                Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2022

   Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Blunt) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Adjusting the special reserve percentage available to committees of the 
                                Senate.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RESERVE ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 20(a)(3) of Senate Resolution 70 (117th Congress), agreed 
to February 24, 2021, is amended by striking ``7 percent'' and 
inserting ``11 percent''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.6

         GOLDEN TELECOM, INC. - LIST OF OFFICERS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003

President and Chief Executive Officer       Alexander Vinogradov

Chief Operating Officer                     Stan Abbeloos

Chief Financial Officer                     David Stewart

General Counsel and Secretary               Jeffrey A. Riddell
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12305]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5205-9]


Flint River Bridge Drum Site; Cost Recovery Agreement for Removal 
Action

agency: Environmental Protection Agency.

action: Notice of proposed cost recovery agreement for removal action.

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

summary: Under Sec. 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to settle claims for 
response costs at the Flint River Bridge Drum Site, Gurley and Madison 
Counties, Alabama with one party: Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation. 
EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty 
(30) days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement 
should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate 
the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. 
Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. 
Batchelor, Cost Recovery Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste 
Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30365, 404/347-5059 X6169.
    Written comments may be submitted to the person above by thirty 
days from the date of publication.

    Dated: May 11, 1995.
James Miller,
Acting Chief, Waste Programs Branch, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12305 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 22

- 20525

____________ Marcus Anderson; Reed Clark,
Plaintiffs

— Appellees ,

versus
Christopher Diaz,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CV

- 4920

______________________________ Before Higginbotham , Higginson , and Duncan , Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

AFFIRMED

. Appellant has not identified any reversible error of law with the district court’s denial of summary judgment

. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6

.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 8, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20525 Document: 00516995636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2023
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 99

    WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                    FORM 10-QSB MARCH 31, 2000



Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the Partnership
Agreement:

1.  Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
    March 31, 2000:

             Net Income                                          $ 132,000
             Add:     Depreciation and amortization                 47,000
             Less:    Cash to reserves                            (152,000)
             Cash Available for Distribution                     $  27,000
             Distributions allocated to General Partners         $   2,000
             Distributions allocated to Limited Partners         $  25,000


2.  Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
    General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended March
    31, 2000:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             Entity Receiving                             Form of
               Compensation                            Compensation                          Amount
         -------------------------       --------------------------------------------      ----------

         <S>                             <C>                                               <C>
         General Partners                Interest in Cash Available for Distribution       $    2,000

         WFC Realty Co., Inc.
         (Initial Limited Partner)       Interest in Cash  Available for Distribution      $        5
</TABLE>





                                    12 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. )

BRADLEY A. STEPHENS, Relator, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:13CV145

)

CONRADO CASTOR, M.D. )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND JOINT MOTION TO

VACATE THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated September 8, 2021, 1 all parties 

submit this Joint Status Report. Additionally, all parties jointly move to vacate the 

dispositive motion deadline on November 8, 2021, and in support of same, state as 

follows:

1. Discovery in this case concluded on August 31, 2021. Since the conclusion of discovery, 

the parties have been engaging in settlement discussions in good faith.

2. The Court set a dispositive motion deadline of November 8, 2021.2

 If the parties need to 

prepare and respond to dispositive motions in that time frame, the prospect of settlement 

will diminish because the parties will be focused on drafting, and responding to, briefs in 

support of dispositive motions and will have little to no time to focus on settlement

1 Docket No. 93.

2 Id.

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00145-JTM document 94 filed 09/17/21 page 1 of 2
2

discussions. Therefore, all parties jointly propose and move that the Court vacate the 

dispositive motion deadline of November 8, 2021.

3. If the Court grants this joint motion, and vacates the dispositive motion deadline of 

November 8, 2021, the parties commit to filing an updated Joint Status Report on 

January 7, 2022, in which the parties will report to the Court the status of the parties’ 

settlement discussions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate the 

Dispositive Motion Deadline of November 8, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

TINA L. NOMMAY

ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Wayne T. Ault /s/ Kevin E. Steele

WAYNE T. AULT KEVIN E. STEELE

DIRK D. DE LOR Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP

Assistant United States Attorneys 156 South Washington Street

Northern District of Indiana Valparaiso, Indiana 46383

5400 Federal Plaza, Suite 1500 Telephone: 219-531-0134

Hammond, Indiana 46320 Telecopy: 219-769-6806

Telephone: 219-937-5500 E-Mail: steele@bcclegal.com

Telecopy: 219-852-2770

E-Mail: wayne.ault@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff United States of America Counsel for Defendant Conrado Castor, M.D.

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00145-JTM document 94 filed 09/17/21 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(X)QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THESECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For quarterly period ended March 31, 2001OR

( ) TRANSITION   REPORT   PURSUANT   TO  SECTION  13 OR 15(d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 1-10602

**MID-AMERICABANCORP**(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

**500 West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky    40202**      (Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)

**(502) 589-3351**(Registrant's telephone number,including area code)

**NONE**(Former name, former address andformer fiscal year,if changed since last report)

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for a shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes    X   No       

(continued)
First amendment to the 2003 (Active) Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.23 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 BIOFORM MEDICAL 2003 (ACTIVE) STOCK PLAN 
 This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the BioForm Medical, Inc. 2003 (Active) Stock Plan (the “2003 Plan”),
approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors of BioForm Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) on November 24, 2008 amends the 2003 Plan as follows: 
  

	1.	By adding the following to Section 2: 

 “2007
Plan” means the BioForm Medical, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. 
 “Award” means, individually or collectively, a
grant of Options or Stock Purchase Rights under the Plan or the 2007 Plan, as applicable. 
 “Exchange Program” means a
program under which (i) outstanding Awards granted under the Plan are cancelled in exchange for Awards granted under the 2007 Plan, of the same type (which may have higher or lower exercise prices and different terms) or of a different type,
and/or for cash, (ii) participants would have the opportunity to transfer any outstanding Awards granted under the Plan to a financial institution or other person or entity selected by the Administrator, and/or (iii) the exercise price of
an outstanding Award under the Plan is reduced. The Administrator will determine the terms and conditions of any Exchange Program in its sole discretion.” 
  

	2.	By adding the following to Section 4(b): 

 “(ix)
to determine the terms and conditions of any, and to institute any Exchange Program.” 
  

 1
Zhaofa WANG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9599.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Office of Global Policy and Strategy 

OGPS STATEMENT

March 21, 2023

South Korean Health Officials Meet with FDA

to Discuss Future Collaborations

Today, FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D., and other FDA officials met with a 

delegation of South Korean health officials, led by South Korean Minister of Food and 

Drug Safety Yu-Kyoung Oh. The meeting, which took place at FDA Headquarters in 

White Oak, Maryland, focused on how the two regulatory counterparts can collaborate 

moving forward. 

Other FDA attendees included Andi Fristedt, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, 

Legislation, and International Affairs; Mark Abdoo, Associate Commissioner for Global 

Policy and Strategy; and Sema Hashemi, Senior International Policy Advisor in the 

Office of Global Policy and Strategy.

Accompanying Minister Oh were Gyuhan Chae, Director General, Medical Device 

Safety Bureau; Seog Youn Kang, Director General, Pharmaceutical Safety Bureau; Yoo 

Mi Kim, Director General, Planning and Coordination; and Minsu Jang, Food and Drug 

Safety Attaché, Embassy of the Republic of Korea.

###
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41244

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRIMITIVO OVIEDO-GALVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-01-CR-424-01

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Primitivo

Oviedo-Galvan has moved for leave to withdraw, filing a motion

and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Oviedo-Galvan has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s Anders motion and brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

MCKESSON CORPORATION

v. 

GREGORY S. CAMPBELL, WAYFARER 

AVIATION, INC. F/K/A JDA ACQUISITION 

COMPANY, INC., ARCADIA AVIATION, 

ARCADIA AVIATION, LLC, ARCADIA 

AVIATION, LTD., ARCADIA AVIATION 

INVESTORS, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION 

MANAGERS, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION 

IAD, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION MSV, 

LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION PHF, LLC 

ARCADIA AVIATION WEY, LLC 

PETITION OF: GREGORY S. CAMPBELL 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 80 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justices Donohue and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this matter.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11738]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

May 5, 1995.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545-1308
Regulation ID Number: PS-260-82 Final
Type of Review: Extension
Title: Election, Revocation, Termination, and Tax Effect of Subchapter 
S Status
Description: Sections 1.1362-1 through 1.1362-7 of the Income Tax 
Regulations provide the specific procedures and requirements necessary 
to implement Sec. 1362, including the filing of various elections and 
statements with the Internal Revenue Service.
Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit, 
Farms
Estimated Number of Respondents: 133
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 4 hours, 20 minutes
Frequency of Response: On occasion
Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 322 hours
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11738 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Deborah WARREN, Appellant, v. COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 03-7035.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

Richard Hugh Semsker, Shannon Salb, Lippman & Semsker, Bethesda, MD, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Teresa Burke Wright, John M. Remy, Michael N. Petkovich, Jackson Lewis, Vienna, VA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EDWARDS, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM:

This case was heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of counsel. It is

ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed. Try as she might, appellant Deborah Warren states no viable cause of action under the “very narrow” public policy exception to the District of Columbia’s at-will employment doctrine. *Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co.,*597 A.2d 28, 34 (D.C.1991). Such an action must be “ ‘firmly anchored in either the Constitution or in a statute or regulation which clearly reflects the particular “public policy” being relied upon’ ” and, to be cognizable, “ ‘there must be a *723close fit between the policy thus declared and the conduct at issue in the allegedly wrongful termination.’ ” *Fingerhut v. Children’s Nat'l Med. Ctr.,*738 A.2d 799, 803 n. 7 (D.C.1999) (quoting *Carl v. Children’s Hosp.,*702 A.2d 159, 162, 164 (D.C. 1997) (Terry, J., concurring)); *see Finger-hut,*738 A.2d at 806-07; *see also Liberatore v. Melville Corp.,*168 F.3d 1326, 1331 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[Cjircumstances ... constitute grounds for a public policy exception if ‘solidly based on a statute or regulation that reflects the particular public policy to be applied.’ ” (quoting *Carl,*702 A.2d at 163 (Terry, J., concurring))).

Warren complains that she was discharged in violation of the alleged public policies undergirding assorted District and federal workplace safety and whistle blower laws for seeking a written agreement indemnifying her from any liability arising from her “fake swabbing” of vehicles entering the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. *See*Appellant’s Br. at 10 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), D.C. Code Ann. § 32-808(a)); Appellant’s Br. at 14 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 1221, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1), D.C. Code Ann. § 1-615.53). These statutes, however, fail to “clearly reflect[ ]” a public policy bearing a “close fit” with her circumstances. *See Fingerhut,*738 A.2d at 803 n. 7. Warren’s indemnification request cannot be taken as a threat to blow the whistle on her employer; in fact, she concedes that her employer could have dispensed with swabbing. Nor does it constitute a complaint about workplace safety; what she requested — personal indemnification— would not have affected the safety of her workplace. Warren simply sought to be absolved of personal liability for fake swabbing and was discharged instead.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cm Rule 41.
Michelle MARTINEZ, et al., petitioners, v. MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS, et al.

No. 12-1357.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2867Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.3.2  


 
 

THE MACERICH COMPANY
  AMENDED AND RESTATED 1994 INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED    
    


        WHEREAS, The Macerich Company (the "Company") maintains The Macerich Company Amended and Restated 1994 Incentive Plan, as amended (the
"Plan"); 


        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has the authority to amend the Plan, and has determined that it is advisable and in the best interests of
the stockholders of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth herein. 


        RESOLVED, that the Plan be and hereby is amended, as follows: 


        (1)   Section 7.1(f)
of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 



"Beneficiary"
shall mean the person, persons, trust, or trusts designated by a Participant or, in the absence of a designation, entitled by will or the laws of descent and distribution, to receive the
benefits specified in the Award Agreement and under this Plan in the event of a Participant's death, and shall mean the Participant's executor or administrator if no other Beneficiary is designated
and able to act under the circumstances." 




        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to confirm the adoption of this Amendment by the Board of Directors
of the Company as of the 29th day of October, 2003. 



	 	 	/s/  RICHARD A. BAYER      
 Richard A. Bayer

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary











QuickLinks


THE MACERICH COMPANY AMENDED AND RESTATED 1994 INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Dr. Paramesh Gopi, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) or its staff upon request. 

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing. 

 

Dated:January 28, 2011
Gary Thomas FRANKLIN, petitioner, v. COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 12-10551.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.