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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6349 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for greater transparency 

in the conversion of Department of Defense functions previously performed by contractors to performance by Department of Defense employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for greater 

transparency in the conversion of Department of Defense 

functions previously performed by contractors to performance by Department of Defense employees, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6349 IH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSPARENCY IN CONVERSION OF FUNC2 TIONS TO PERFORMANCE BY DEPARTMENT 

3 OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 146 of title 10, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 2477. Transparency in conversion of functions to 

8 performance by Department of Defense 

9 civilian employees 

10 ‘‘(a) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary 

11 of Defense shall submit to Congress and make publicly 

12 available on an Internet Web site the following informa13 tion: 

14 ‘‘(1) The total number of jobs, performed by 

15 both Department of Defense civilian employees and 

16 contractors, in each State and at each military in17 stallation. 

18 ‘‘(2) The total number of Department of De19 fense functions converted from performance by con20 tractors to performance by Department of Defense 

21 civilian employees in each State and at each military 

22 installation, and the task area of each such function. 

23 ‘‘(b) COST OF PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS.—The 

24 Secretary of Defense shall make publicly available the 

25 comparison of the cost of performance of each Department 

26 of Defense function that is converted from performance 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6349 IH

1 by a contractor to performance by Department of Defense 

2 civilian employees. 

3 ‘‘(c) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN APPEAL PROCE4 DURE.—Any small business concern (under the meaning 

5 given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act 

6 (15 U.S.C. 632)) that performs a Department of Defense 

7 function that is converted to performance by Department 

8 of Defense civilian employees and that by reason of such 

9 conversion loses 33 percent or more of the revenue gen10 erated by the concern through contracts or 33 percent or 

11 more of the employees of the concern may appeal the con12 version of the function to the Inspector General of the 

13 military department concerned or to the Secretary of De14 fense.’’. 

15 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

16 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

17 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘2477. Transparency in conversion of functions to performance by Department 

of Defense civilian employees.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,572
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         5,666
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    15,674
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3,252
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3,314
<LOANS>                                        62,453
<ALLOWANCE>                                    236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 91,211
<DEPOSITS>                                     73,258
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,762
<LONG-TERM>                                    9,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 91,211
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,454
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              563
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               110
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3,127
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,026
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1,101
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                264
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     170
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      33
<NET-INCOME>                                   137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 258
<LOANS-NON>                                    0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   280
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                601
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               228
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  0
<RECOVERIES>                                   1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              236
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           236
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR. 07-0011 

IN THE MATTER OF CALLING A RETIRED 

DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTIVE SERVICE 

FILED 

AUG 16 2023 

BON/011 GreenWOCK1 

Clerk of Supreme Cour,

State of Montana 

ORDER. 

The Honorable Mike Menahan, Judge of the District Court for the First Judicial 

District of the State of Montana, has requested the assistance of retired District Judge Mike 

Salvagni to assume jurisdiction of Lewis and Clark County Cause No. ADC 2022-480, 

State of Montana v. Justin J. Fifield. 

Judge Salvagni has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement 

System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has 

advised that he is agreeable to assisting the First Judicial District Court with the 

above-listed matter. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Honorable Mike Salvagni, retired District Judge, is hereby called to active 

service in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, to assume 

judicial authority of Lewis and Clark County Cause No. ADC 2022-480, State of Montana 

v. Justin J. Fifield, and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, 

opinions, and orders, including final resolution of said matter. 

2. For all active service, Judge Sahragni shall be paid the salary compensation to 

which he is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be 

reimbursed. 

3. A copy of this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the First Judicial 

District, Lewis and Clark County, with the request that this Order be sent to all counsel of 

record in the above-listed matter. 

08/16/2023

Case Number: PR 07-0011
4. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to the Honorable Mike Menahan, the 

Honorable Mike Salvagni, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court 

Administrator. 

The Chief Justice enters this Order pursuant to Article WI, Section 6(3) of the 1972 

Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation 

thereof. 14/am 

DATED this I 1, day of August, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,493
<SECURITIES>                                     6,714
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,302
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,472
<PP&E>                                          10,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,762
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,223
<SALES>                                         52,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,103
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  78
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       105
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,651,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,675,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,053,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,577,000
<PP&E>                                      21,386,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,432,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,751,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,542,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,871,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,088,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,751,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            92,831,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              118,803,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (517,000)<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (25,788,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (8,671,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,117,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,117,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable are stated at net of allowance for doubtful accounts.
<F2>Comprised of $827,000 of interest income and $310,000 of exchange loss.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6477 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6477

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear for women 
                          covering the ankle.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2010

 Mr. Carnahan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear for women 
                          covering the ankle.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WORK FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN COVERING THE ANKLE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.64.01  Work footwear for   Free            No change       No change       On or before 12/    ''.
                     women with outer                                                    31/2012.........
                     soles of rubber,
                     plastics, leather
                     or composition
                     leather and
                     uppers of
                     leather,
                     incorporating a
                     protective toe
                     cap of materials
                     other than metal,
                     covering the
                     ankle, but not
                     higher than 6"
                     (provided for in
                     subheading
                     6403.91.90.15)...

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Optional Checklist for Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)

This is an optional checklist to assist petitioners with filing Form I-129F. ***Do not submit this checklist to USCIS.***

**NOTE:** This optional checklist does not replace or change statutory or regulatory requirements. We recommend that you review these requirements, as well as the appropriate form instructions, before completing and submitting Form I-129F. Do not send original documents unless specifically requested in the form instructions. See uscis.gov/I-129F for the most recent version of the Form I-129F and its instructions.

Did you complete all sections of the form that apply to you?

Did you sign and date the form?

Did you submit the correct fee?

Did you provide the following?
                    - Photographs.
                    - Proof of your U.S. citizenship.
                    - Proof or original statements of intent to marry from both you and your fiancé(e).
                    - Proof of legal termination of all prior marriages for both you and your fiancé(e).
                    - Proof that you and your fiancé(e) have met in person within two years before filing Form I-129F.
                    - Completed  Form G-28  (only if you are represented by an attorney or an accredited representative).
                    - Certified English translations of any non-English documents.

08/09/2018

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
(July 20, 1989)

#### In the Matter of the Estate of William F. Dolan, Deceased. Delma Dolan, Appellant; Maureen Dolan et al., Respondents.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie Lambert, S.), entered September 26, 1988, which, *inter alia,*determined that income taxes on the settlement corpus were to be borne exclusively by the proponent Delma Dolan, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the matter remanded for determination of objectants’ share to be computed on the basis of the amount remaining after satisfaction of the estate’s income tax liability, without costs.

The parties entered into a stipulation in settlement of a will contest. The stipulation, as spread out by the Surrogate upon the record, provided that the objectants would receive $117,000, an amount representing some 45% of the estimated corpus. The proponent, the decedent’s widow, was to receive the remaining 55% of the estate. The $117,000 sum to which the objectants were entitled under the stipulation was subject *485to variation if the decedent’s pension profit-sharing plan payout was substantially more or less than anticipated; the objectants were ultimately to receive 45% of the pension payout in addition to those amounts ascertainable at the time of the stipulation. The stipulation did not address the question of who would satisfy the income tax liability on the pension payout, nor is there any indication that that question had been considered in advance of the stipulation by either the proponent or the objectants. When the substantial tax liability became evident, the proponent proposed that it be shared proportionately. The objectants, however, refused, maintaining in essence that the stipulation’s silence on the matter of income tax liability dictated that the proponent, the designated beneficiary of the pension profit-sharing plan under the decedent’s probated will, should bear the entire tax liability. While retaining jurisdiction of the matter, presumably to address matters left unresolved by the stipulation, the Surrogate shared the objectants’ view that the stipulation’s failure to address the tax liability question was determinative. We disagree.

It is clear from the documentary evidence that the shared objective of the parties to the settlement negotiations was to reach an equitable compromise as to the division of the estate corpus. The stipulation spread upon the record only partially reflected a broader understanding to split the estate, 45% to the objectants and 55% to the proponent. We think that this purpose would be frustrated by requiring, in effect, that the proponent satisfy the very substantial State and Federal income tax obligation out of her share of the estate. She would, in that case, be left with substantially less than the objectants despite her nominal 55% share. Certainly, the stipulation’s failure to address income tax consequences ought not to have been taken as conclusive of how those consequences were to be borne, particularly when the result of such a construction was plainly contrary to the agreement’s overall purpose. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

Spouse Consent Letter 
 To: Genetron
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 
 Whereas: 
  

	1.	 I, He Weiwu (ID card/passport number:
[            ]), am the spouse of the natural person Wang Xiaoge (ID card number: [            ]). Wang Xiaoge holds 6.544%
equity of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Target Equity Interest”) 


  

	2.	 With respect to the aforementioned Target Equity Interest held by Wang Xiaoge, Wang Xiaoge entered into the
Exclusive Option Agreement with other related parties on July 30, 2019, entered into the Equity Pledge Agreement with other related parties on July 30, 2019 and entered into the Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement with other
related parties on July 30, 2019; and 


  

	3.	 Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd entered into the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement with Genetron
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. on July 2, 2019. This Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement together with the aforementioned Exclusive Option Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement and Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement constitute the
contractual control arrangement regarding Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Contractual Control Arrangement”). 



Hereby, I confirm and irrevocably undertake as follows on July 30, 2019: 
  

	1.	 I confirm that I have noted and agree that my spouse Wang Xiaoge entered into the Exclusive Option Agreement,
Equity Pledge Agreement and Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement. The aforementioned Target Equity Interest of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd held by Wang Xiaoge is not our joint property. I have no rights and interests in such Target
Equity Interest, including the rights gained from the Contractual Control Arrangement. I will never take any action to interfere with the Contractual Control Arrangement, including but not limited to claiming any right over the aforementioned Target
Equity Interest and the Contractual Control Arrangement. 


  

	2.	 I hereby undertake, I have not participated in and will not plan to actually participate in the operation and
management of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd in the future, and I will not claim any right related to the equity interests and assets of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 



  
 1 














	3.	 If, for any reason, I obtain all or part of the aforementioned equity, I unconditionally agree to be a party of
the Contractual Control Arrangement and be bound by the Contractual Control Arrangement. In this respect, I undertake to take all necessary actions and to sign all necessary documents. 



This letter will take effect immediately upon its signature by me and will be continuously effective. 

  
 2 













 (This page is intentionally left blank and is the signing page of this Spouse Consent
Letter) 
  

			
	Undertaker’s Signature:	 	 /s/ He Weiwu

	 	 	Date: July 30, 2019



  
 3