alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5872 

AN ACT 

To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 

2010 for guaranteed loans that are obligations of the 

General and Special Risk Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5872 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘General and Special 

3 Risk Insurance Funds Availability Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADEQUATE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal 

6 year 2010 the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop7 ment may enter into commitments to guarantee loans, as 

8 authorized by sections 238 and 519 of the National Hous9 ing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–3 and 1735c), in an amount 

10 not exceeding $20,000,000,000 in total loan principal, any 

11 part of which is to be guaranteed. 

12 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5872 

AN ACT 

To provide adequate commitment authority for fisUrban Development. ance Funds of the Department of Housing and gations of the General and Special Risk Insur- cal year 2010 for guaranteed loans that are obli-
Exhibit 14.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117098) pertaining to the:



2002 Incentive Stock Option Plan

2001 Incentive Stock Option Plan

2000 Incentive Stock Option Plan

1999 U.S. Incentive Stock Option Plan

1996 Mitotix, Inc. Equity
Incentive Plan

Convertible Bonds Terms and Conditions for Managers

of the Company and Management Bodies and Second-Tier Domestic and

Management of Foreign Affiliated Enterprises as well as for
Consultants dated

May 21, 2003

Convertible
Bonds Terms and Conditions for Managers of the Company and

Management Bodies and Management of Second-Tier Domestic Foreign Affiliated

Enterprises as well as for Consultants

dated June 11, 2002



of GPC Biotech AG of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the

consolidated financial statements of GPC Biotech AG included in its Annual Report

(Form 20-F), for the year ended December 31, 2005.



Ernst & Young AG

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft



March 30, 2006



|                         |  |  |  |                       
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------
|/s/  Julie Linn Teigland |  |  |  | /s/  Dr. E. Napolitano
|                         |  | 
|Julie Linn Teigland      |  |  |  | Dr. E. Napolitano
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.31 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DECEMBER 18, 2003   * * * EXTRACT * * * Remuneration of Chairman of the Board RESOLVED, That the annual compensation to be paid to Mr. L.R. Wilson for his services
as Chairman of the Board of the Corporation and Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) shall be
increased from US$360,000 per year to US$400,000 per year, effective January 1, 2004; Directors Remuneration RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, each Director of the Corporation who is not
a salaried employee of the Corporation, NNC, or any of its or their subsidiaries (each a Nortel
Networks Company), shall receive an annual Board retainer of US$60,000; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, each member of a Board Committee who is not
a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company, shall be paid remuneration for services, as a
member of each Board Committee on which the member sits a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum; except that a retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to any member of
a Board Committee who is also a member of an identical committee of the NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, any Chairman of a Board Committee (other
than the Audit Committee Chairman), who is not a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company,
shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum, except that an additional retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to
any Chairman of a Board Committee (other than the Audit Committee Chairman) who is also Chairman of
an identical committee of the NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate
of US$27,500 per annum, except that an additional retainer fee of US$13,750 per annum shall be paid
to the Chairman of the Audit Committee if he or she is also chairman of the Audit Committee of the
NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That the Directors entitled to the remuneration provided for in the
preceding resolutions shall be reimbursed for the reasonable travel and living and




---



##### 



other expenses properly incurred by them in attending any meeting of the Board of Directors or its
Committees, or for performing services as Directors; RESOLVED, That the remuneration provided for in these resolutions shall be paid
quarterly, in arrears, in United States dollars or, at the request of a Director, in the Canadian
dollar equivalent thereof; RESOLVED, That, for greater certainty, Directors shall not be paid an additional fee
for attendance at Board of Directors or Committee meetings;
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                  Duke Energy Field Services Corporation
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Predecessor
                                                                      Company
                                                                    Historical(1)
                                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Years Ended
                                                                      1995         1996      1997       1998       1999      2000
<S>                                                                 <C>          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>
Earnings:
  Pretax income from continuing operations before equity earnings     69,254      117,277    74,834     (6,528)    51,856   341,800
  Add:
    Fixed charges                                                     22,320       14,663    54,177     54,791     55,021   151,567
    Distributed income of equity investees                             1,660        2,997     9,784     11,845     22,502    31,656

  Subtract:
   Interest Capitalized                                                1,694        1,405     2,254      1,565        930       324
                                                                    --------     --------  --------   --------   --------  --------
 Income as adjusted                                                   91,540      133,532   136,541     58,543    128,449   524,699
                                                                    --------     --------  --------   --------   --------  --------

Fixed charges:
  Interest and Debt expense per Statement of Income                   20,115       12,747    51,113     52,403     52,915  $149,220
  Capitalized Interest                                                 1,694        1,405     2,254      1,565        930       324
  Portion of rents representative of the interest factor                 511          511       810        823      1,176     2,023
                                                                    --------     --------  --------   --------   --------  --------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                                   22,320       14,663    54,177     54,791     55,021   151,567
                                                                    --------     --------  --------   --------   --------  --------


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED                                              4.10         9.11      2.52       1.07       2.33      3.46
CHARGES
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *863Craig J. Schultz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), imposed September 9, 1986, upon his conviction of criminal sale of marihuana in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a plea of guilty, the sentence being two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The County Court informed the defendant that he could not, in good conscience, impose the promised sentence due to the nature and extent of the crimes. The defendant was then offered the option of accepting the sentence actually imposed or withdrawing his guilty plea *(see, People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, *cert denied*419 US 1122). The court gave the defendant an adjournment for more than one week to consider this and to make a decision. On the adjourned date, the defendant expressly stated that he would not withdraw his plea of guilty and would "accept” the proposed sentence. The defendant had not so changed his position in reliance on the sentence promise that the withdrawal of his guilty plea would not have restored him to his original position *(cf., People v McConnell,*49 NY2d 340; *People v Danny G.,*61 NY2d 169). Therefore, he was not entitled to specific performance of the original sentence promise.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
No. 75-1877.

#### Skeen et ux. *v.*Valley Bank of Nevada.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 05-12

IN RE: RECALL OF SENIOR JUDGE

O R D E R

WHEREAS the Court has been receiving approximately300 Notices ofAppeal everymonth,

as well as numerous motions and other filings, and

WHEREAS appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court deserve timelyjudicial review

and decision, and

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1) may recall

Senior Judges of the Court who have retired but who have agreed to be available for such recall

when their service is needed by the Court, and

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court has determined that the service of a Senior Judge

is needed by the Court and, if recalled, that Senior Judge would perform judicial duties and provide

substantial service to the Court, and

WHEREAS Senior Judge Kenneth B. Kramer has consented to be available for recall as

needed by the Court,

THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that, effective April 30, 2012, Judge Kenneth B. Kramer is recalled from retired

status to have and to exercise all of the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in active

service and to otherwise perform substantial service with the Court as requested by the Chief Judge. 

Judge Kramer shall serve until the Chief Judge of the Court determines that his service is no longer

needed or for a period of time not to exceed 90 days, whichever is sooner, unless extended by the

Chief Judge with the consent of Judge Kramer.

DATED: April 13, 2012 BY THE COURT:

Bruce E. Kasold

Chief Judge
#### Jeffrey Michael PATAKY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Phillip B. Gordon and Jane Doe Gordon, husband and wife; Frank Fairbanks and Jane Doe Fairbanks, husband and wife; Jack Harris and Jane Doe Harris, husband and wife; Anthony Brokaw and Jane Doe Brokaw, husband and wife; George J. Richards and Jane Doe Richards, husband and wife; Brandon Huntley and Jane Doe Huntley, husband and wife; John Doe Renteria and Sandra Renteria, husband and wife; Louie Tovar and Jane Doe Tovar, husband and wife; George Fulton and Jane Doe Fulton, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17674.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Jess A. Lorona, Gregory E. McClure, Esquire, Lorona Steiner Ducar Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eileen Dennis Gilbride, Esquire, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

*

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

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jeffrey Michael Pataky appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his Section 1983 malicious prosecution and state law gross negligence claims against defendant-appellee Detective Anthony Brokaw. Pataky contends that the district court erred when it held that Det. Brokaw is entitled to absolute immunity.

The procedural posture of this case in the district court prevents us from taking jurisdiction, because some of Pataky’s claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. No final judgment was entered. Pataky neither amended nor noticed the district court of his intention not to amend. Nor did he seek a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification. Instead, he filed this appeal.

We have held that “a plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be obtained.” *WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). “Unless a plaintiff files in wilting a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint, [a dismissal order with leave to amend] is not an appealable final decision.” *Lopez v. City of Needles,**64995 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1996). The fact that some of Pataky’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend is of no consequence, because “leave to amend was granted as to others, and there was no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification.” *WMX Technologies,*104 F.3d at 1136 n. 1.

Therefore, the district court’s dismissal was not a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we are without jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10075]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 11, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-10075 Filed 4-19-01; 11:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20796-20797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00-495-000 and RP01-97-000]

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Technical 
Conference

April 19, 2001.
    On August 16, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) 
made a filing in Docket No. RP00-495-000 to comply with Order No. 637. 
Several parties have protested various aspects of Texas Gas's filing. 
Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues 
raised by Texas Gas's filing will be held on May 24, 2001, beginning at 
9 a.m. in room 3M-2A&B at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Persons 
protesting aspects of Texas

[[Page 20797]]

Gas's filing should be prepared to answer questions and discuss 
alternatives. Issues pertaining to Texas Gas's filing in Docket No. 
RP01-97-000 may also be discussed.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. The issues to be 
discussed will include, but are not limited to:
    A. Penalties
    B. Segmentation
    C. Flexible Point Rights
    D. Imbalance Services
    E. OFOs
    F. Discount Policy Regarding Changed Receipt and Delivery Points
    G. The Location in Texas Gas's tariff of the provisions pertaining 
to the above issues
    Texas Gas should provide a system map for use at the conference.
    The above schedule may be changed as circumstances warrant.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10195 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#               I-129CWR, Semiannual Report for CW-1 Employers

**ALERT:** On Jan. 31, 2024, we published a final rule in the Federal Register that adjusts the fees required for most immigration applications and petitions. The new fees will be effective April 1, 2024.

Applications and petitions postmarked on or after April 1, 2024, must include the new fees or we will not accept them.

What to Know About Sending Us Your Form

The new filing fee is effective for filings postmarked April 1, 2024, and later. If you are filing an acceptable prior form edition on or after April 1, 2024, you must include the new filing fee.

An employer of an approved Form I-129CW, Petition for Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Only Transitional Worker (CW-1), uses Form I-129CWR to verify the continued employment and payment of each worker under the terms and conditions of the approved petition. 

During the validity of the petition, employers are required to file this report with USCIS every six months after the petition validity start date. USCIS may revoke the employer’s approved petition or deny their future petitions if they do not comply with the reporting requirement.

## Forms and Document Downloads

Form I-129CWR  (PDF, 554.52 KB)

Instructions for Form I-129CWR  (PDF, 260.95 KB)

## Form Details

04/01/24. Starting June 3, 2024, we will accept only the 04/01/24 edition. Until then, you can also use the 09/03/21 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. 

Dates are listed in mm/dd/yy format.

If you complete and print this form to mail it, make sure that the form edition date and page numbers are visible at the bottom of all pages and that all pages are from the same form edition. If any of the form’s pages are missing or are from a different form edition, we may reject your form.

If you need help downloading and printing forms, read our instructions. 

**For FedEx, UPS, DHL, and U.S. Postal Service (USPS):**USCIS Western Forms CenterAttn: Form I-129CWR10 Application WayMontclair, CA 91763-1350

You can find the filing fee for Form I-129CWR by visiting our Fee Schedule page.  

**Filing Tips:**Review our Tips for Filing Forms by Mail page for information on how to ensure we will accept your form.

**Don’t forget to sign your form.**We will reject any unsigned form.

If you are an employer whose petition has been approved for an employment start date on or after Oct. 1, 2019, you must file Form I-129CWR for each approved Form I-129CW petition according to the timeframes indicated in the chart below. 

You must file this form no earlier than 30 days before and no later than 30 days after the listed timeframes. If you do not file Form I-129CWR in a timely manner, we may revoke your approved petition.

                      - CW-1: CNMI-Only Transitional Worker
                      - I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker
                      - Public Charge

04/01/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
**Exhibit 32.2** CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the annual report of Caneum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for theyear ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:July 2, 2007/s/ Gary Allhusen Gary Allhusen, COO
(8 Misc. Rep. 41.)

#### HEFFRAN v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO.

(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.

April 24, 1894.)

Street Railroads—Right to Use of Street.

Street railroads have the paramount, but not exclusive, right to the use of their tracks, and are liable for injuries caused by their negligence to persons on the track.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by James Heffran against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new'trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before CLEMENT, C. J., and VAN WYCK, J.

Morris & Whitehouse, for appellant.

Wm. Van Wyck, for respondent.

CLEMENT, C. J.

The plaintiff, on July 31, 1893, was driving a heavily loaded truck along Franklin avenue, in a northerly direction. There were pieces of iron on the load, which projected four or five feet beyond the end of the truck. When Fulton street was reached, he turned into that street in an easterly direction, and, in order to avoid striking a car standing on Franklin avenue, made a long-sweep, and in doing so drove the truck on the northerly or down track of Fulton street. When the truck was almost out of the northerly track, the front wheel was struck by an electric car, and, *519as a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown from his seat, which was six feet above the ground, and sustained an injury. There was testimony tending to show that the trolley car was running at a rapid rate of speed. The counsel for the appellant raises the single point that the plaintiff should have been nonsuited on the ground of contributory negligence. The law is well settled that a street-railroad company does not have the exclusive right to the use of its tracks. Its right is paramount, and foot travelers and drivers of vehicles must respect such right. Fleckenstein v. Railroad Co., 105 N. Y. 665, 11 N. E. 951; Adolph v. Railroad Co., 76 N. Y. 530. On the other hand, if a driver, as matter of necessity, must turn his truck on a track, the motorman on an electric car cannot negligently run him down. If, in the present case, the motorman had exercised care, he could easily have avoided the collision. The truck and the car were running in nearly opposite directions, and the truck at the time was nearly off the track. The question of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was clearly one for the jury, and the verdict on that issue is conclusive. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.