alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,520
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6457 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

distributions from individual retirement plans during periods of unemployment in 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income distributions from individual retirement plans during periods of unemployment in 2009, 

2010, and 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RETIREMENT PLAN DISTRIBUTIONS WHILE UN4 EMPLOYED DURING 2009, 2010, AND 2011 EX5 CLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986, gross income shall not include any 

8 qualified unemployment distribution. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6457 IH

1 (b) QUALIFIED UNEMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, 

3 the term ‘‘qualified unemployment distribution’’ 

4 means any distribution from a qualified retirement 

5 plan (as defined in section 4974(c) of such Code) 

6 after separation from employment, if— 

7 (A) such individual has received unemploy8 ment compensation for 12 consecutive weeks 

9 under any Federal or State unemployment com10 pensation law by reason of such separation, 

11 (B) such distributions are made during 

12 any taxable year during which such unemploy13 ment compensation is paid or the succeeding 

14 taxable year, and 

15 (C) such distribution is made after Decem16 ber 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2012. 

17 (2) DISTRIBUTIONS AFTER REEMPLOYMENT.— 

18 Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any distribution 

19 made after the individual has been employed for at 

20 least 60 days after the separation from employment 

21 to which paragraph (1) applies. 

22 (3) SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.—To the ex23 tent provided in regulations by the Secretary of the 

24 Treasury, a self-employed individual shall be treated 

25 as meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) if, 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6457 IH

1 under Federal or State law, the individual would 

2 have received unemployment compensation but for 

3 the fact the individual was self-employed. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

5 distributions made after December 31, 2008, in taxable 

6 years ending after such date. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
(July 26, 1989)

#### Patrick Schoendorf, Petitioner, v Michael Mullen et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from further prosecuting the petitioner under Suffolk County indictment number 936/1988 on the ground of double jeopardy.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner is charged with two counts of murder in the second degree for the fatal shooting of his wife. Upon questioning by the police on the day of the incident, he made oral statements which were followed two hours later by a full written confession. After a hearing, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, suppressed those portions of the oral statements of which the petitioner was not provided notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. At the trial, after numerous efforts at clarifying the court’s suppression ruling and endeavoring to adhere to the ruling in the presentation of the People’s case, the prosecutor made improper references to the suppressed oral statements in his opening statement, which the jury was instructed to disregard, and, apparently inadvertently, elicited a single unresponsive answer from a detective in contravention of the ruling. The trial court granted the petitioner’s motion for a mistrial, observing that the testimony was unduly prejudicial to the petitioner and deprived him of a fair trial *(see,*CPL 280.10 [1]).

*716The petitioner claims that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial because his motion for a mistrial was provoked by deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree. Our review of the relevant portions of the record reveals that the prosecutor’s conduct was not "intended to provoke the [petitioner] into moving for a mistrial” *(Oregon v Kennedy,*456 US 667, 679). "Absent such a bad-faith intent, the misconduct does not constitute that type of prosecutorial overreaching contemplated by the United States Supreme Court as requiring the barring of reprosecution on the ground of double jeopardy” *(People v Copeland,*127 AD2d 846, 847; *see, Matter of Jordan v O’Dwyer,*152 AD2d 671; *Matter of Owen v Harrigan,*131 AD2d 20). Nor is retrial interdicted by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New York State Constitution *(see,*NY Const, art I, § 6; *People v Presley,*136 AD2d 949). Therefore, the petitioner’s claim is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6265 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6265

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the 
                approval of genetically engineered fish.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the 
                approval of genetically engineered fish.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PREVENTING THE APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH.

    Section 512(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
        a genetically engineered fish shall be deemed unsafe under this 
        section, including for purposes of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HAYES v. MESTANIZ.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Negotiable Instruments—Consideration—Surrender op Former Note.

The surrender of a note is a sufficient consideration for a new note made by defendant, though defendant was not liable on the old note.

Appeal from jury term.

Action by George Hayes against Linbonier R. Mestaniz. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed .by the court in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

D. S. Ritterband, for appellant.

A. T. Goodwin, for appellee.

FREEDMAN, J.

The complaint is upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff. Upon the trial, the defendant at once assumed the burden of establishing lack of consideration for the note sued upon. At the close of the evidence given by the defendant, both parties moved for the direction of a verdict. Neither claimed that there was any question of fact for the jury. The evidence not only failed to establish lack of consideration, but showed a sufficient consideration; namely, the surrender of a prior note, upon which other parties were liable, even if the defendant, \vho had indorsed the same, was not. This prior note came from the possession of the defendant, and was put in evidence by him. Under the circumstances, the verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
**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 on Form 10-Q of GameTech International,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Jay Meilstrup, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/S/
      Jay M.
      Meilstrup


Jay
      M.
      Meilstrup


Chief
      Executive Officer





March
      14,
      2007
- Home
- Careers

# Equity, Diversity & Inclusion

Equity, diversity, and inclusion are essential to law enforcement operations and effectiveness. From the global nature of threats to strengthening community relations, there is a heightened need for our employees to respond to emergencies with professionalism, pride, and effectiveness. Through diversity management, the United States Capitol Police (USCP) leverages the unique skills, talents, and expertise that we bring to the USCP through our different backgrounds, experiences, demographics, and perspectives. By embracing these differences, the USCP is keenly positioned to recruit, retain, and promote the best and the brightest.

As the equity, diversity, and inclusion vision for the United States Capitol Police further develops, the following services will be provided in a concerted effort to leverage the skills, abilities, and talents of the USCP workforce:
                  - Training
                  - Professional Development
                  - Mentoring and Coaching
                  - Employee Resource Groups
                  - Speaker Series
                  - Policy Review

The Department welcomes the diverse insights of our employees in how best to promote a successful workforce and the fulfillment of our critical mission.

## Check out our 2023 Annual Report HERE. 

      Image    

## Check out our Equity & Inclusion Strategic Plan HERE.

      Image    
 

 

## Careers

              - Overview
              - Career Opportunities
              - Eligibility & Hiring
              - Videos
              - Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
              - Recruiting Team
              - FAQS
Trustee Notice



 Exhibit 4.1 

 

 

 March 30, 2010 
 Mr. George Kubin 
 Vice President 
 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company 
 222 South Riverside Plaza,
25th Floor 
 Chicago, IL 60606 
 Attention: Corporate Trust
Administration 
 Fax: 312 537 1009 
  

			
	Subject:	  	Hawker Beechcraft Acquisition Company LLC Senior PIK Election Note
		  	dated March 26, 2007

 Dear Mr. Kubin, 
 Pursuant to clause 1 of the Subject Note, we hereby notify you of our election to pay cash interest for the entire amount of interest due for the interest
period beginning April 1, 2010. 
 Sincerely, 

 

 

 George M. Sellew 
 Vice President and Treasurer 
 Hawker Beechcraft Acquisition Company LLC 
 101 S. Webb Road 
 Wichita, KS 67201-0085
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, McCl anahan and Senior Judge Willis

EDYN OSLEY GUERRA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0497-07-4 PER CURIAM JULY 24, 2007 HAWK, INC. AND WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP SELF INSUR ANCE ASSOCIATION

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Arturo H. Hernandez, on brief), for appellant.

(Michael P. Del Bueno; Brandon R. Jordan; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on brief), for appellees.

Edyn Osley Guerra (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation

Commission denying his claim for permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits. 1 Claimant

argues the commission abused its discretion in disregarding the tr eating physician’s opinion. We

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Guerra v. Hawk, Inc. , VWC File No. 220-50-50 (Feb. 21, 2007) . We dispense with oral

argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 The commission noted in its opinion that claimant’s Written Statement on review addressed only the issue of PPD benefits and, theref ore, limited its review to that issue. While claimant raises the question on appeal of wh ether the commission abused its discretion in allowing employer to conduct and file an Indepe ndent Medical Examination, he did not obtain any ruling on that question from the full comm ission on review. Accordingly, there is nothing for us to review, and we will not consider th at question for the first time on appeal. See Green v. Warwick Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 5 Va. App. 409, 413, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1988); Rule 5A:18.- 2 - in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid th e decisional process. See Code

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6416 

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind 

immunity. 

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 ‘‘American Traveller 

5 Dignity Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING 

7 METHODS. 

8 No law of the United States shall be construed to 

9 confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or 

10 any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who 

11 subjects an individual to any physical contact (including 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6416 IH

1 contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x2 rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or 

3 views a representation of any part of a individual’s body 

4 covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to 

5 be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding 

6 sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individ7 ual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives con8 sent. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6524 

To authorize issuance of certificates of documentation authorizing certain 

vessels to engage in coastwise trade in the carriage of natural gas, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2010 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize issuance of certificates of documentation authorizing certain vessels to engage in coastwise trade 

in the carriage of natural gas, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION EXEMPTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 12112 

5 and 12132 and chapter 551 of title 46, United States 

6 Code, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

7 Guard is operating may issue a certificate of documenta8 tion with a coastwise endorsement for each of the following 

9 vessels: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6524 IH

1 (1) LNG GEMINI (United States official num2 ber 595752). 

3 (2) LNG LEO (United States official number 

4 595753). 

5 (3) LNG VIRGO (United States official num6 bers 595755). 

7 (b) LIMITATION ON OPERATION.—Coastwise trade 

8 authorized under subsection (a) shall be limited to car9 riage of natural gas, as that term is defined in section 

10 3(13) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 

11 1502(13)). 

12 (c) TERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ENDORSE13 MENTS.—The coastwise endorsement issued under sub14 section (a) for a vessel shall expire on the date of the sale 

15 of the vessel by the owner of the vessel on the date of 

16 enactment of this Act to a person who is not related by 

17 ownership or control to such owner. 

18 SEC. 2. OPERATION OF DRY DOCK IN KETCHIKAN, ALASKA. 

19 A vessel transported in Dry Dock #2 (State of Alas20 ka registration AIDEA FDD–2) is not merchandise for 

21 purposes of section 55102 of title 46, United States Code, 

22 if, during such transportation, Dry Dock #2 remains con23 nected by a utility or other connecting line to pierside 

24 moorage located in Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Biserka B., Appellant, v Zdenko R., Respondent.

— In a matrimonial action, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated July 16, 1986, which denied her application for an order of filiation, to modify a judgment of divorce of the same court (Graci, J.), dated July 25, 1983, naming the respondent, the appellant’s former husband, as the father of the child, and to name the appellant’s present husband as the true father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*729The Supreme Court properly applied the principle of equitable estoppel to bar the appellant from asserting that the respondent is not the father of her child. The child was born while the appellant and the respondent were married and living together; the respondent was named as the child’s father in the birth and baptismal certificates, in the separation agreement and in the judgment of divorce; the appellant held the child out, by her words and deeds, as the son of the respondent throughout the marriage, the separation period and for nearly three years after the parties were divorced. During the last two of those years, the appellant was married to the putative father. Thus, the appellant created an opportunity for the development of a father-son relationship between the respondent and the child. Having concealed for eight years the purported "true” paternity of the child, the appellant is now estopped from contesting the respondent’s paternity *(see, e.g., Matter of Montelone v Antia,*60 AD2d 603; *State of New York ex rel. H. v P.,*90 AD2d 434; *Matter of Boyles v Boyles,*95 AD2d 95).

Even if equitable estoppel had been found to be inapplicable to the circumstances presented, the appellant’s application would properly have been denied by reason of her failure to rebut the presumption of legitimacy *(see, Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v Koehler,*284 NY 260; *Matter of Findlay,*253 NY 1; *Dawn B. v Kevin D.,*96 AD2d 922; *Matter of Joan G. v Robert W.,*83 AD2d 838).

Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to order a blood test of the respondent *(Matter of Montelone v Antia, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Heater 

Fire Safety

Follow these heating safety tips to help 

keep your home fi re safe this winter.

feet

3 feet

3

 Make sure your heater has been tested by a 

recognized testing laboratory.

 Make sure your heater has an automatic shutoff , so if it tips over, it shuts off .

 Keep anything that can burn, like bedding, 

clothing and curtains, at least 3 feet away from 

your heater.

 Place space heaters on a solid, fl at surface. 

 Turn heaters off when you go to bed or leave 

the room.

Heater 

Fire Safety

Follow these heating safety tips to help 

keep your home fi re safe this winter.

feet

3 feet

3

 Make sure your heater has been tested by a 

recognized testing laboratory.

 Make sure your heater has an automatic shutoff , so if it tips over, it shuts off .

 Keep anything that can burn, like bedding, 

clothing and curtains, at least 3 feet away from 

your heater.

 Place space heaters on a solid, fl at surface. 

 Turn heaters off when you go to bed or leave 

the room.

Heater 

Fire Safety

Follow these heating safety tips to help 

keep your home fi re safe this winter.

feet

3 feet

3

 Make sure your heater has been tested by a 

recognized testing laboratory.

 Make sure your heater has an automatic shutoff , so if it tips over, it shuts off .

 Keep anything that can burn, like bedding, 

clothing and curtains, at least 3 feet away from 

your heater.

 Place space heaters on a solid, fl at surface. 

 Turn heaters off when you go to bed or leave 

the room.
Heater Fire Safety

Space heater safety

 Do not plug anything else into the same circuit 

as the one you are using for your space heater. 

This can cause overheating.

 Plug portable heaters directly into outlets. 

Never use an extension cord or power strip.

Kerosene heater safety

 Always use the proper fuel in your heater.

 Refuel your heater outside once it has cooled.

For more information, visit 

www.usfa.fema.gov.

   usfi re

Heater Fire Safety

Space heater safety

 Do not plug anything else into the same circuit 

as the one you are using for your space heater. 

This can cause overheating.

 Plug portable heaters directly into outlets. 

Never use an extension cord or power strip.

Kerosene heater safety

 Always use the proper fuel in your heater.

 Refuel your heater outside once it has cooled.

For more information, visit 

www.usfa.fema.gov.

   usfi re

Heater Fire Safety

Space heater safety

 Do not plug anything else into the same circuit 

as the one you are using for your space heater. 

This can cause overheating.

 Plug portable heaters directly into outlets. 

Never use an extension cord or power strip.

Kerosene heater safety

 Always use the proper fuel in your heater.

 Refuel your heater outside once it has cooled.

For more information, visit 

www.usfa.fema.gov.

   usfi re