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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2546 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, 

a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. LYNCH, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of 

a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate 

liability insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Firearm Risk Protec5 tion Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2546 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PUR2 CHASE OF FIREARM BY, A PERSON NOT COV3 ERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSUR4 ANCE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to 

9 purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, 

10 the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the pur11 chaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy. 

12 ‘‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm 

13 unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the 

14 purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance pol15 icy. 

16 ‘‘(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a 

17 firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this 

18 subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insur19 ance policy. 

20 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the pur21 chase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States 

22 or any department or agency of the United States, or any 

23 State or any department, agency, or political subdivision 

24 of a State. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2546 IH

1 ‘‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability in2 surance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of 

3 a firearm, a policy that— 

4 ‘‘(A) provides liability insurance covering the 

5 purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of 

6 the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and 

7 ‘‘(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or author8 ized to provide the coverage by the State insurance 

9 regulatory authority for the State in which the pur10 chaser resides.’’. 

11 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924 of such title is amended 

12 by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined 

14 not more than $10,000.’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 

17 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.78

                         EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES NO. 14
                   Of the Meeting of the Forest Use Commission
                            Dated September 15, 2000

                                                                      Khabarovsk

4. Considered: About lessees's applications concerning discrepancy between the
leased exploitable timber inventory and available exploitable inventory at the
given area. Resolved:

4.1. To agree with the proposals of Forest Administration of Khabarovsk
territory to reduce the volume of annual timber output at a number of the leased
areas basing on calculations of the Far East State Forest Agency as well as to
obtain more specific information of condition of forest areas as a result of
changes after forest fires of 1998. To provide continuity and inexhaustibility
of forest use:

4.2. To reduce the annual timber output at the territory leased by JSC
"Forest-Starma" in Tumninskiy leskhoz by 161 thousand cubic meters having fixed
it in volume of 154 thousand cubic meters including:
- 1 group forests - 21 thousand cubic meters;
- 3 group forests - 133 thousand cubic meters.

To consider as voided the resolution of the territorial forest use commission
dated November 5, 1997 (Minutes No. 25) concerning volume of the annual timber
output at the forest areas leased by JSC "Forest-Starma" in Tumninskiy leskhoz.

To reduce the annual timber output at the territory leased by JSC
"Forest-Starma" in Vysokocornyio leskhoz by 77 thousand cubic meters having
fixed it in the volume of 163 thousand cubic meters.

To consider as voided the resolution of the territorial forest use commission
dated November 5, 1997 (Minutes No, 25) concerning volume of the annual timber
output at the forest areas leased by "Forest-Starma" in Vysokogorniy leskhoz.

4.6. The lessees and leskhozes mentioned in points 4.2-4.5 of this resolution
will include the respective amendments in the lease agreements and register them
in legal agencies in accordance with the procedure.

Deputy Chairman of the Commission
Director of Natural Resources And Raw Materials
Industry Department of the
Khabarovsk Territory Administration     /s/ G. E. Pocherevin     G.E. Pocherevin


Secretary of the Commission             /s/ V.N. Nistratov       V.N. Nistratov
Exhibit 32

PERIODIC REPORT CERTIFICATION
of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

I,
Daniel Griesemer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|/s/DANIEL GRIESEMERDaniel Griesemer
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|April 2, 2008                                                                                           |  |  | 
|                                                                                                       

I,
Timothy O. Martin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|/s/TIMOTHY O. MARTINTimothy O. Martin
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer) |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  | 
|April 2, 2008                                                                                                                                          |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
# U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

## CIVILRIGHTS DIRECTORY

### STATEAND LOCAL AGENCIES 

ALABAMA
#### Ashok Goel, Respondent, v Tower Insurance Company of New York et al., Appellants.

[948 NYS2d 244]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered February 21, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed plaintiff to appear for an examination under oath (EUO) within 90 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants did not establish that plaintiffs failure to comply with the coverage conditions by not sitting for an EUO and by not producing all of the documents sought by defendants, was willful noncompliance with the terms of the subject policy. The motion court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in concluding that plaintiffs conduct was not so willful as to require excusing defendants from liability *(see Erie Ins. Co. v JMM Props., LLC,*66 AD3d 1282, 1285 [2009]), particularly where, as here, there is evidence to suggest that defendants may have also breached the terms of the policy. Moreover, the record shows that defendants did not act diligently to obtain plaintiff’s cooperation in a manner that was reasonably calculated to bring it about *(see Utica First Ins. Co. v Arken, Inc.,*18 AD3d 644 [2005]).

There is no basis, at this stage of the proceedings, to dismiss defendant Tower Group, Inc. from the action.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### Jose Martin LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71175.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Martin Limon-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order *690dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The agency determined that Limon-Robles was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii), based on his 1987 conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1405, 1401, 3821, 1001, 604.01, 702, 801 and 812. Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held in *Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder,*636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18,1988. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency in light of *Ledezma-Galicia.*

In light of our disposition, we need not address Limon-Robles’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*690ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,

concurring in the judgement:

I reluctantly concur in the judgment. I continue to believe that *Ledezma-Galicia*was wrongly decided. *See Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder,*636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010) (Bybee, J., dissenting).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John A. Sallitto, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), *346rendered September 16, 1982, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The defendant was charged in a single-count indictment with reckless endangerment in the first degree.

The evidence adduced at trial revealed that the defendant fired several shots from a .22 caliber rifle while standing on the raised front porch of his house, facing Park Avenue in Huntington, New York. Traffic on Park Avenue was moderate to heavy at that time. At least one of the shots hit a plastic flower pot on the lawn of the house, about 25 feet from the porch and 10 to 15 feet from Park Avenue. Although the indictment charged that the defendant fired a number of shots into passing automobile traffic, there was no properly admitted evidence that he actually did so.

A conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree requires a showing that the defendant, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person (Penal Law § 120.25). The facts of the instant case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reveal that the defendant fired one or more shots in the general direction of Park Avenue, at least one of which hit an object 10 feet short of the roadway. This conduct does not establish that the defendant acted under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, or that he created a grave risk of death *(see, People v Richardson,*97 AD2d 693; *cf. People v Menard,*113 AD2d 972; *People v Fenner,*61 NY2d 971; *People v Register,*60 NY2d 270, cert *denied*466 US 953).

Further, the trial court improperly admitted, over objection, the hearsay statement of an unidentified person who allegedly reported to the police that he had seen the defendant shooting a rifle at traffic. The People argue that this statement was not admitted for its truth, but to establish a predicate for police action. However, since this unidentified hearsay declarant was the only person to have claimed to have actually seen the defendant fire into traffic, and the jury was never instructed that it could not consider the statement for its truth, the erroneous admission of this testimony deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

*347In view of the foregoing, the indictment must be dismissed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intevac, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations 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 and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ JEFFREY ANDRESONJeffrey AndresonVice President, Finance and Administration,Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
#### GORDON, Respondent, v. MOQUIN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by William Gordon against William A. Moquin and Carsten Offerman.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
# C_2021463EN.01002201.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/22

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10503 – SK Capital Partners / Seqens)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/19)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | SK Capital Partners, LP (‘SK Capital Partners’, US), |
| --- | --- |

—

SK Capital Partners, LP (‘SK Capital Partners’, US),

| — | Seqens Group Holding SAS (‘Seqens’, France). |
| --- | --- |

—

Seqens Group Holding SAS (‘Seqens’, France).

SK Capital Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Seqens.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | SK Capital Partners is a private investment firm focused on specialty materials, chemicals and the pharmaceutical sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

SK Capital Partners is a private investment firm focused on specialty materials, chemicals and the pharmaceutical sector;

| — | Seqens is active in the manufacturing and distribution of diversified essential chemicals, pharmaceutical solutions and specialty ingredients. |
| --- | --- |

—

Seqens is active in the manufacturing and distribution of diversified essential chemicals, pharmaceutical solutions and specialty ingredients.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10503 – SK Capital Partners / Seqens

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/    JOHN E.
MCNULTY              
|John E. McNulty                     
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|August 9, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-71-020]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

April 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 6, 2000 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing recalculated rates, 
supporting workpapers and pro forma tariff sheets pursuant to Ordering 
Paragraph (B) of the Commission's Order on Initial Decision issued on 
March 17, 2000 (March 17 Order) in Docket No. RP97-71-000.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant compliance filing is 
to submit recalculated rates and supporting workpapers to adjust the 
Docket No. RP97-71 rates using the return on equity of 12.40 percent 
and cost of debt of 8.21 percent approved in the March 17 Order. The 
period covered by the recalculated rates reflected in the instant 
filing extends from May 1, 1997 through March 31, 2000.
    The March 17 Order also directs Transco to file pro forma tariff 
sheets reflecting on a prospective basis the elimination of the revenue 
credit related to a discount given to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
and Public Service Electric and Gas Company under Transco's Rate 
Schedule X-15 and reflecting the approved rate of return. Accordingly, 
Transco submits in the instant filing pro forma tariff sheets 
containing revised rates that reflect, on a prospective basis, the 
removal of the effects of the Rate Schedule X-15 rate discount from 
Transco's billing determinants in its rate design volumes, as well as 
the rate of return approved in the March 17 Order, and supporting 
workpapers for such rates.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all 
parties in Docket No. RP97-71-000 and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 19, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be reviewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9596 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
> 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 Biotech Holdings Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Robert B. Rieveley, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:
> The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
>   The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:   September __25___, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> /s/ Robert B. Rieveley
> ______________________________________
> Robert B. Rieveley, President and C.E.O.
> 
> 
> 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 Biotech Holdings Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Lorne D. Brown, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:
> The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
>   The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:   September _25__, 2007
> 
> 
> /s/ Lorne D. Brown
> ______________________________________
> Lorne D. Brown, C.F.O.