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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2556 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2556

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to repeal the 
  authorization for program development and implementation grants for 
 coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to repeal the 
  authorization for program development and implementation grants for 
 coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification, 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. REPEAL OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS 
              AUTHORIZATION.

    Section 406(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1346(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) Repeal of authority.--The Administrator may not make 
        a grant to a State or local government under this subsection 
        after the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.6


 


Summary
of Lease Agreement


 


Note: this
summary does not contain a full or direct translation of the terms of the original Hebrew-language lease agreement, and is designated
solely for the purpose of providing a general presentation of such agreement.


 


On
December 11, 2007, Azorei Malal Industries Ltd. (the “Lessor”) and Cellebrite DI Ltd. (the “Company”)
entered into a lease agreement, and into the addendums thereto, dated as of January 12, 2015, March 12, 2015, May 19, 2016, October 18,
2017, January 17, 2019, and March 3, 2019 (collectively, the “Lease Agreement”).


 


	1.	The
    Premises


 


Certain
spaces in a building located in Petach-Tikva, on 94 Em Hamoshavot Rd. (the “Asset”).


 


The
total square meters of the leased premises includes 6,386 square meters of office spaces on the fourth floor, fifth floor, sixth floor,
seventh floor and eighth floor (the “Premises”), as well as 168 parking spaces.


 


	2.	Purpose
    of the Lease


 


The
Premises are to be used by the Company for its activities in the field of digital intelligence.


 


	3.	Leasing
    Period


 


An
initial lease period of three years, that commenced on December 11, 2007 (the “Initial Period”), as extended
to an additional term ending on May 15, 2026 (the “Extended Period”).


 


	4.	Consideration


 


The
monthly lease fee for the Premises is approximately 731,678 NIS, excluding VAT (US$ 223,184 subject to the exchange rate of June 20,
2021), and a monthly fee in the amount of approximately 71,904 NIS, excluding VAT (US$ 21,932 subject to the exchange rate of June 20,
2021) for the parking space, all linked to the Israeli consumer price index (the “Base Rental Fee”).


 


	5.	Guarantees
    and Security Deposits


 


The
Company provided the Lessor with an autonomous bank guarantee in the amount of NIS [_______] (excluding VAT), which is equivalent
to four monthly Base Rental Fees, in order to ensure compliance with the Lease Agreement. The security deposit will serve as payment
of the Base Rental Fees for the last four months of the lease.


 


	6.	Insurance


 


The
Company shall maintain customary insurances.


 


	7.	Termination
    of the Lease Agreement


 


The
Company shall not be entitled to terminate the Lease Agreement prior to the expiration of the Leasing Period, except upon the Company’s
request to terminate the Lease Agreement 5 years following its execution, and by providing the Lessor with a prior written notice, at
least 6 months in advance.


 


Note: this
summary does not contain a full or direct translation of the terms of the original Hebrew-language lease agreement, and is designated
solely for the purpose of providing a general presentation of such agreement.


 


*   *   *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant

vs.

PAUL BLADE WOODS,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0409

Enforcement Activity No. 7810443

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: December 14, 2023

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Appearances:

CWO Joey Dore

USCG Marine Safety Detachment Belfast

For the Coast Guard

Paul Blade Woods, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about December 6, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated December 14, 2023, at

Alameda, California

 

_____________________

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9440]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Apri1 14, 2000, 11:00 AM to 
April 14, 2000, 1:00 PM, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000, 65FR17518.
    The meeting will be held on April 13, 2000, from 1:00 PM to 3:00 
PM. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 7, 2000.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-9440 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
---, ~ "~" I III II II I llllll Ill .......... - -- ~.~__~% I i Ill "-

Order issued November ,2012



### In The 

## (£ourt of fth Oi trict of exae at

No. 05-12-00658-CV I-NNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LP, Appellant

YOUNGSOFT, INC., Appellee 

### ORDER We GRANTappellant’s October 30, 2012 motion for an extension of time 

### to f’de a reply brief. Appellant shall file its reply brief on 19, 2012.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,849
<PP&E>                                         197,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 255,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,050
<BONDS>                                         36,725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,566
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   255,212
<SALES>                                        207,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,932
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,771
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,891
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald O’Toole, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 127]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered October 14, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

At defendant’s first trial, which resulted in a reversal by this Court (39 AD3d 419 [2007]), defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery but acquitted of first-degree robbery and two counts of attempted second-degree grand larceny. Therefore, *436under the facts presented, the People were barred by collateral estoppel from presenting evidence at the retrial that defendant’s accomplice pointed what appeared to be a pistol at the complaining witness during the alleged robbery, and that defendant also attempted to extort regular payments of protection money from the complaining witness on the day of the robbery and on a later occasion. The court erred in allowing the introduction of this evidence.

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in [a] defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” *(People v Acevedo,*69 NY2d 478, 484 [1987]). “[C]ourts considering such claims must give a practical, rational reading to the record of the first trial” *(id.*at 487).

Characterizing the acquittals as resulting from inadequate corroboration of the complaining witness’s testimony, the People urge this Court to treat this scenario in the same manner as cases in which a defendant is acquitted of crimes subject to the statutory requirement that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated. This argument is unavailing. When a statutory corroboration requirement governs, the possibility exists that an acquittal flows not from a factual issue being resolved in the defendant’s favor as a purely factual matter, but “merely [because] the People had not met the requirement of corroboration” *(People v Goodman,*69 NY2d 32, 42 [1986]). The same cannot be said here, where no statutory corroboration requirement was applicable.

In view of this disposition, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

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

         The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 10, 2004                            /s/ Jeffrey M. Smuda
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Jeffrey M. Smuda
                                                Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

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

         The undersigned, a consultant performing certain services For OrderPro
Logistics, Inc. commonly performed by a chief financial officer, hereby
certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 10, 2004                      /s/ Robert C. Scherne
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Consultant performing certain services
                                          for the Company commonly performed by
                                          a Chief Financial Officer
No. 75-1897.

#### Rogers *v.*Board of Trustees of McKendree College et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered January 15, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s conclusion that the police action in this case was reasonable and proper, that the police possessed the requisite probable cause to arrest the defendant and that the guns seized from inside and from underneath the car occupied by the defendant were admissible in evidence *(see, e.g., People v Finlayson,*76 AD2d 670, *lv denied*51 NY2d 1011, *cert denied*450 US 931; *People v Sanders,*79 AD2d 688).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power we find, contrary to the contentions raised by the defendant in his *pro se*brief, that the evidence of his guilt of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### Christopher DiGioia, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Jose F. Reyes et al., Appellants.

[945 NYS2d 731]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 4, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Christopher DiGioia on the ground that that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Christopher DiGioia is granted.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Christopher DiGioia (hereinafter the respondent) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbosacral regions of the respondent’s spine did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Rodriguez v Huerfano,*46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]), and, in any event, were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). The defendants also submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the respondent’s right shoulder did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *710
      *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). Finally, the defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the respondent did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Richards v Tyson,*64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]).

In opposition, the respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical or lumbosacral regions of his spine were caused by the subject accident *(see Maffei v Santiago,*63 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2009]). He also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to his right shoulder constituted a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Finally, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the respondent. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Fee Schedule

The current fee schedule went into effect 12-01-2023.

**Applicability to the United States**

No fees included in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Schedule of Fees are to be charged for services rendered on behalf of the United States, with the exception of those specifically prescribed in items 8, 11, and 16, provided the record, recording, or information requested is available through electronic access. See https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees.

**Notice to Customers Presenting Checks and Money Orders**

When you provide a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer from your account or to process the payment as a check transaction. For inquiries, please call (202) 357-6406.

When we use information from your check to make an electronic fund transfer, funds may be withdrawn from your account as soon as the same day you make your payment, and you will not receive your check back from your financial institution. For any payment returned or denied for insufficient funds, a fee of $53.00 will be charged.

Privacy Act - A Privacy Act Statement required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) stating the court's authority for soliciting and collecting the information from your check, and explaining the purposes and routine uses which will be made of your check information, is available from the Department of Treasury Financial Management Service website at https://doc.ssologin1.fms.treas.gov/esso/common/privacy.html, or call toll free at 1-866-945-7920 (local number, Delaware) 302-324-6442, Military DSN 510-428-6824 (option 4, option 5, option 4) to obtain a copy by mail. Furnishing the check information is voluntary, but a decision not to do so may require you to make payment by some other method.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

FORM OF NOTES CERTIFICATE 

Serial Number: [ 🌑 ] 

THE NOTES HAVE NOT BEEN AND WILL NOT BE REGISTERED UNDER THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”) OR ANY SECURITIES LAW
OF ANY STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, RESOLD, DELIVERED OR DISTRIBUTED (DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY) IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES OR TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OR BENEFIT OF ANY U.S. PERSON EXCEPT IN A
TRANSACTION EXEMPT FROM, OR NOT SUBJECT TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OR SUCH OTHER SECURITIES LAW OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

I. BY ITS ACQUISITION HEREOF, THE HOLDER OF THIS SECURITY (1) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS ACQUIRING THIS SECURITY IN A TRANSACTION EXEMPT FROM, OR NOT SUBJECT
TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT AND (2) AGREES ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ANY INVESTOR FOR WHICH IT HAS PURCHASED SECURITIES TO OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THIS SECURITY OR A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN
THIS SECURITY ONLY 
 (A) TO THE ISSUER OR ANY SUBSIDIARY THEREOF, (B) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED EFFECTIVE UNDER
THE 
 II. U.S. SECURITIES ACT, OR (C) PURSUANT TO ANY TRANSACTION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM, OR NOT SUBJECT TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S.
SECURITIES ACT, SUBJECT IN EACH OF THE FOREGOING CASES TO COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS AND ANY APPLICABLE LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO THE ISSUER’S AND THE AGENT’S RIGHTS PRIOR TO ANY SUCH
OFFER, SALE OR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CLAUSE (C) TO REQUIRE THE DELIVERY OF A CERTIFICATION AND/OR OTHER INFORMATION SATISFACTORY TO IT, INCLUDING A TRANSFER CERTIFICATE IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM SET OUT IN THE NOTES PURCHASE AGREEMENT (AS
DEFINED HEREIN); AND (3) AGREES THAT IT WILL TRANSFER TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THIS SECURITY IS TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF THIS LEGEND. IN ADDITION TO THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ABOVE, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER SET FORTH IN CLAUSE 27 (CHANGES TO THE NOTEHOLDERS) OF THE NOTES PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 












 IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRANSFER, THE HOLDER AND TRANSFEREE WILL DELIVER TO THE AGENT SUCH CERTIFICATES
AND OTHER INFORMATION AS THE AGENT MAY REASONABLY REQUIRE TO CONFIRM THAT THE TRANSFER COMPLIES WITH THE FOREGOING RESTRICTIONS. 
 III. [THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION IS SUPPLIED SOLELY FOR U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES. THIS NOTE WAS ISSUED WITH ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT (“OID”) WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 1273 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED (THE “CODE”), AND
THIS LEGEND IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1275(C) OF THE CODE. THE ISSUER AGREES TO PROMPTLY MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE HOLDER OF THIS NOTE, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST, THE ISSUE PRICE, THE AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT, THE ISSUE DATE AND THE YIELD TO MATURITY
WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTE. ANY SUCH REQUEST SHOULD BE SENT TO ISSUER AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: [    ].]