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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2206 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require 

recipients of State Homeland Security Grant Program 

funding to preserve and strengthen interoperable emergency communications capabilities, 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, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2206 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Wide Interoper3 able Communications Enhancement Act’’ or the ‘‘SWIC 

4 Enhancement Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MINIMUM CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CER6 TAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 2004(b) 

8 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605(b)) 

9 is amended by— 

10 (1) redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 

11 subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and 

12 (2) inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol13 lowing new subparagraph: 

14 ‘‘(B)(i) certification that the Governor of 

15 the State has designated a Statewide Interoper16 ability Coordinator, including identification in 

17 such certification of the individual so des18 ignated, who shall be responsible for— 

19 ‘‘(I) coordinating the daily operations 

20 of the State’s interoperability efforts; 

21 ‘‘(II) coordinating State interoper22 ability and communications projects and 

23 grant applications for such projects; 

24 ‘‘(III) establishing and maintaining 

25 working groups to develop and implement 

26 key interoperability initiatives; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2206 RFS 

1 ‘‘(IV) coordinating and updating, as 

2 necessary, a Statewide Communications 

3 Interoperability Plan that specifies the cur4 rent status of State efforts to enhance 

5 communications interoperability within the 

6 State, including progress, modifications, or 

7 setbacks, and future goals for communica8 tions interoperability among emergency re9 sponse agencies in the State; or 

10 ‘‘(ii) if a Statewide Interoperability Coordi11 nator has not been designated in accordance 

12 with clause (i)— 

13 ‘‘(I) certification that the State is per14 forming in another manner the functions 

15 described in subclauses (I) through (IV) of 

16 such clause; and 

17 ‘‘(II) identification in such certifi18 cation of an individual who has been des19 ignated by the State as the primary point 

20 of contact for performance of such func21 tions;’’. 

22 (b) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.—The amendment 

23 made by subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 

24 grant for which an application was submitted under the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 2206 RFS 

1 State Homeland Security Grant Program before the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 27, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021133EN.01000701.xml

| 16.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/7

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2021/C 133/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of Brigadier General Mohammed BILAL (No 14), Mr. Ali BARAKAT (No 78), Brigadier General Jamal YUNES (No 96), Mr. Emad Abdul Ghani SABOUNI (No 114), Mr. Adnan Hassan MAHMOUD (No 117), Brigadier General Abdul-Salam Fajr MAHMOUD (No 132), Major General Hussam LUQA (No 139), Brigadier General Taha TAHA (No 140), Major General Amer AL-ACHI (No 147), Mr. Adel Anwar AL-OLABI (No 295) and Damascus Cham Holding Company (No 78) , persons and entity appearing in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the abovementioned persons and entity with amended statements of reasons. Those persons and entity are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the proposed amended statement of reasons for maintaining their designation, by 23 April 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The persons and entity concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address or email address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0548

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRYAN HUGH HINDMAN, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2022

09/02/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0548
#### Larry E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-17715.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2011.*

Filed April 25, 2011.

Larry E. Johnson, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Michael A. Johns, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Katherine R. Loo, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

*763Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Larry Johnson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Michael Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), for lack of jurisdiction1*See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). We affirm.

Johnson asserts that because he had filed claims for discrimination and harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) arising out of his employment by SSA, the district court had jurisdiction, even though he had entered into a settlement and withdrawn all complaints and appeals. He asserts that SSA breached the settlement agreement and points out that an EEOC regulation indicates that the EEOC may order compliance or reinstatement of a claim when it is satisfied that a breach has been shown. *See*29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(c). However, that regulation does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity and confer the power to adjudicate Johnson’s claim of breach on the district court. *See Munoz v. Mabus,*630 F.3d 856, 860-863 (9th Cir. 2010). That being so, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the claim.2

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

1

. He asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.

2

. On appeal, Johnson alludes to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § § 701-706. However, he neither pled nor argued the provisions of that Act before the district court, and we will not consider the issue on appeal. *See Crawford v. Lungren,*96 F.3d 380, 389 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996).
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 18 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHNSON WISDOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

vs.

RON WARD; THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7114

(D.C. No. CIV-97-527-P)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Wisdom seeks to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr.

Wisdom was convicted in state court of first degree murder, and on direct appeal

challenged the use of a videotaped statement in his trial on the basis that he did
- 2 -

not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his constitutional rights. The

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction, finding that 

[t]he totality of the circumstances surrounding the taking of [Mr.

Wisdom’s] statement, including the characteristics of the accused and

the details of the interrogation, support a finding that [Mr. Wisdom]

knowingly and voluntarily relinquished his Miranda rights and that

he did not make his statement pursuant to trickery or under coercive

circumstances.

Wisdom v. State, 918 P.2d 384, 392 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).

Mr. Wisdom raised the same arguments in his federal habeas petition. The

district court denied Mr. Wisdom’s request for an evidentiary hearing, finding

that disputed factual issues could be resolved by a review of the record. The

court then held that Mr. Wisdom failed to show that the trial court’s decision to

admit the videotape into evidence violated clearly established federal law or that

it was based on an unreasonable determination of factual issues. After a careful

reading of the briefs and record, we agree that Mr. Wisdom has not shown by

clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s finding that he was not tricked

or coerced into making his statement was incorrect, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);

nor has he shown that the trial court’s finding that he knowingly and voluntarily

waived his Miranda rights was contrary to federal law. See id. § 2254(d)(1). 

Accordingly, because Mr. Wisdom has failed to make “a substantial

showing of a denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we DENY

his application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal.
- 3 -

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>








                                EXHIBIT 1.03
                               -------------


                       CERTIFICATE OF NAME CHANGE TO

                           TAMARA RESOURCES, INC.



                                    117
</Page>

<PAGE>

CANADA                                                               NUMBER
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA                                         216983




                        Province of British Columbia

                 Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

                           REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

                                COMPANY ACT

                                CERTIFICATE

                           I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT

                          RED FORK RESOURCES INC.

                 HAS THIS DAY CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE NAME

                           TAMARA RESOURCES INC.





GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE
AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

THIS 3lST DAY OF  MARCH, 1981



L. G. HUCK
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES




                                    118
</Page>

<PAGE>
                                    FORM
                               (Section 370)
                        PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

                                                             Certificate of
                                                  Incorporation No. 216983



                               COMPANIES ACT

                            SPECIAL RESOLUTION.

The following special resolution was passed by the undermentioned Company
on the date stated :

Name of Company.  RED FORK RESOURCES  INC. .

Date resolution passed:  November 18th            , 1980

See note (a) Resolution :

RESOLVED AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT:

The name of the Company be changed from "RED FORK RESOURCES INC. " to
"TAMARA RESOURCES INC. " and that the first paragraph of the Memorandum of
the Company be, altered accordingly.










Certified a true copy the          18th  day of November, 1980



(Signature)



(Relationship to Company)


                                    119
</Page>

<PAGE>


                                   FORM 1


                                (SECTION 7)


                               COMPANIES ACT

                                 MEMORANDUM


I wish to be formed into a Company with limited liability under the
Companies Act in pursuance of this Memoradum.


1.   The name of the Company is RED FORK RESOURCES, INC.


2.   The authorized capital of the Company consists of Twenty-Five
(25,000,000) Shares without par value.


3.   I agree to take the number and kind and class of shares in the Company
set opposite my name.



FULL NAMES, RESIDENT ADDRESSES                    NUMBER AND KIND AND CLASS
AND OCCUPATIONS OF SUBSCRIBERS                           OF SHARES TAKEN

STEPHEN R.X. O'NEILL, Solicitor                       ONE (1) COMMON SHARE


TOTAL SHARES TAKEN:                                   ONE (1) COMMON SHARE


     DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 15-day of September, 1980.

                                    120
</Page>
# C_2021291EN.01000201.xml

| 21.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10342 — Leonard Green & Partners/Goldman Sachs Group/AEA Investors/Visual Comfort)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 291/02)

On 15 July 2021, 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 32021M10342. 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 32021M10342. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Exhibit 13.1



CHINA MOBILE (HONG KONG) LIMITED



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, WANG Xiaochu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of China Mobile (Hong Kong) Limited (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |        |  |                                     
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: June 17, 2004 |  |       
|                    |  |       
|                    |  |        |  | /s/ WANG Xiaochu                    
|                    |  | Name:  |  | WANG Xiaochu                        
|                    |  | Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
cbai_ex41i.htm


    EXHIBIT
4.1(i)

     

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        8
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2016

**ALJ Decisions: 2016**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital, Inc., Respondent, v Henry F. Chartier et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: An appeal does not lie from the denial of a motion to reargue *(Cross v Cross,*112 AD2d 62, 64; *Phillips v Village of Oriskany,*57 AD2d 110, 113) or from the denial of a motion to resettle the decretal provisions of an order *(Banat v Banat,*41 AD2d 960). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lynch, J. — renew/reargue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of The PBSJ Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard A. Wickett, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  | 
|----------------- |  |  | 
|December 19, 2003 |  |  | 
|                  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |