alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#                                                                         Ford’s first CO returns for USS Gerald R. Ford’s first deployment                                                                    

##### by  Petty Officer 3rd Class Adonica Munoz

21 November 2022

            SLIDESHOW | 1 images | 221110-N-FP390-1033                    Rear Adm. John Meier, commander, Naval Air Forces Atlantic, observes flight operations with Lt. Cmdr. Jessica Obrien, from Statesville, North Carolina, assigned to the first-in-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford's (CVN 78) air department, in the ship’s catapult control station, Nov. 10, 2022. Exercise Silent Wolverine is a U.S.-led, combined training exercise that tests Ford-class aircraft carrier capabilities through integrated high-end naval warfare scenarios alongside participating allies in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is conducting their first deployment in the U.S. Naval Forces Europe area of operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Tyrell Lovewine)        

                    221110-N-FP390-1033                                            1 of 1                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

Tags:
**FORD**Commanding Officer**Plankowner**CNAL
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 858 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 858

To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

  Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Terry, and Mrs. Schmidt) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Testing Integrity Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. BAN OF PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO DEFRAUD DRUG TESTS.

    (a) Conduct Prohibited.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly 
manufacture, market, sell, ship, or otherwise provide to another 
individual any product with the intent to assist such other individual 
to use such product to defraud a drug test.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``defraud a drug 
test'' means--
            (1) submit a substance that purports to be from an 
        individual other than its actual source, or purports to have 
        been excreted or collected other than when it was actually 
        excreted or collected; or
            (2) engage in any other conduct with the intent to produce 
        a false or misleading outcome of a test for the presence of a 
        controlled substance.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

    (a) Unfair and Deceptive Act or Practice.--A violation of section 2 
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
    (b) Enforcement Authority.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Voyager Learning Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his knowledge: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ David W. Asai                                
|David W. Asai,                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

September 17, 2008
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 Comdial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Clinebell, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth M. Clinebell                            
|                      |  |     |  | Kenneth M. Clinebell                                
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
|                      |  |     |  | Senior Vice President                               



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



77
# C_2009296EN.01001801.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/18

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 2 October 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39129 — Power Transformers (2)

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

2009/C 296/06

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s reasoning on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s reasoning on the basic amount of the fines.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s assessment of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances (other than the aspect covered by Question 4). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s assessment of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances (other than the aspect covered by Question 4).

| 4. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that there are exceptional circumstances present in this case that justify granting a reduction of fines for effective cooperation outside the 2002 Leniency notice, as set out in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that there are exceptional circumstances present in this case that justify granting a reduction of fines for effective cooperation outside the 2002 Leniency notice, as set out in the draft decision.

| 5. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission’s reasoning for the amount of the reduction of fines for effective cooperation outside the 2002 Leniency notice. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission’s reasoning for the amount of the reduction of fines for effective cooperation outside the 2002 Leniency notice.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Leniency notice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Leniency notice.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all other points raised during the discussion.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
#### In the Matter of Cranston Kelley, Appellant, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, Matter of Watson v Coughlin,*132 AD2d 831, *affd*72 NY2d 965; *Matter of Howard v Kelly,*115 AD2d 1011, *appeal withdrawn*67 NY2d 938). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Clear All

        02 October 2023    

                    USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (HWW) arrives in Tema, Ghana                 
                The Lewis B. Puller-class expeditionary sea base USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) arrived in Tema, Ghana for a routine port visit, Oct. 2, 2023. While in port Tema, the ship will onload stores and conduct routine maintenance. This port visit is the ship’s second stop while deployed to the U.S.            

        26 December 2022    

                    USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) spends Christmas in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania                 
                The Lewis B. Puller-class expeditionary sea base USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) spent the Christmas season in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania after arriving in the Tanzanian port for a scheduled visit, Dec. 22, 2022.            

        02 November 2022    

                    USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) arrives in Luanda, Angola                 
                LUANDA, Angola - The Lewis B. Puller-class expeditionary sea base USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) arrived in Luanda, Angola for a regularly scheduled port visit, Nov. 2, 2022.            

        11 October 2022    

                    NAVAF joins allies and partners for Grand African NEMO 22                 
                Sailors assigned to U.S. Naval Forces Africa (NAVAF) joined allies and partners for the French-led exercise Grand African Navy Exercise for Maritime Operations (NEMO) 2022 in the Gulf of Guinea, Oct. 10, 2022.            

        05 October 2022    

                    USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) swaps crew in Ghana                 
                The Lewis B. Puller-class expeditionary sea base USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) swapped crews after completing a maintenance availability in Tema, Sept. 30, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Clear All

        22 June 2022    

                     Navy Week program sets sail for Albuquerque, New Mexico                 
                MILLINGTON, Tenn. – The U.S. Navy is preparing to bring a Navy Week to Albuquerque, New Mexico, during the week of September 12-18, as the 10th Navy Week of the calendar year.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50257 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL GARCIA-DE LA TORRE, also known as Alejandro Lopez, also known as Miguel Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CR-270-ALL-SS

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Garcia-De La Torre appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-De La Torre complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Garcia-De La Torre thus contends that hisNo. 03-50257 -2- sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Garcia-De La Torre acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATA

March 18, 2005

Appeal No. 03-1600 and Appeal No. 03-1616

Mercexchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc. & Half.com, Inc.

Decided: March 16, 2005 Precedential Opinion

Change the opinion as follows:

• Replace page 2, lines 14-23, with the following:

defendants, the district court granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment that the claims of the ’051 patent were invalid for an inadequate written description. The remainder of the case went to trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the tria l, the jury found that eBay had willfully infringed claims 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 26 of the ’265 patent and had induced ReturnBuy to infringe claims 1, 4, 7, and 23 of the ’265 patent; that Half.com had willfully infringed clai ms 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, 22, and 26-29 of the ‘265 patent and claims 1, 5-6, 29, 31-32, and 34-39 of the ’176 patent; and that neither the ’265 pat ent nor the ’176 patent was invalid. With respect to damages, the jury found eBay liable for $10.5 million for infringing the ’265 patent and $5.5 million for inducing ReturnBuy to infringe the ’265 patent. The jury also held Half.com liable for $19 million for infringing the ’176 patent and the ‘265 patent.

• Delete footnote 1 on page 6.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS. 

450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400 

New York, NY 10123 

(212) 947-1999 

Attorneys for BMS Catastrophe, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

LUIS RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

-AGAINST110 CHURCH LLC, 120 BROADWAY 

CONDOMINIUM (CONDO #871), 120 

BROADWAY HOLDING, LLC, 120 

BROADWAY PROPERTIES, LLC, 120 

BROADWAY, LLC, 53 PARK PLACE 

LLC, 715 REALTY CORP., ALAN 

KASMAN DBA KASCO, ANN TAYLOR 

STORES CORPORATION, BATTERY 

PARK CITY AUTHORITY,BLACKMONMOORING STEAMATIC 

CATASTOPHE, INC. D/B/A BMS 

CAT, et.al. 

Defendants. 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

INDEX NO.: 07 CV 05313 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant, BMS Catastrophe, Inc. s/h/a 

Blackmon-Mooring-Steamatic Catastophe, Inc. d/b/a BMS Catastrophe, by 

their attorneys, Methfessel & Werbel, as and for their response to the 

allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) 

Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby 

adopts their Answer and defenses to the Master Complaint, dated July 26, 

2007, which was filed in the matter of: In Re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

 To the extent that Defendant’s Answer to the Master Complaint does not 

comprehensively address any of the specific allegations within the Check-Off 

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 13 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 3
Complaint in the above captioned matter, Defendant, Defendant, BMS 

Catastrophe, Inc., denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of such specific allegations. 

 WHEREFORE, the defendant, Defendant, BMS Catastrophe, Inc., 

demands judgment dismissing the above captioned action as against them, 

together with costs, disbursements and such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: New York, New York 

 December 20, 2007 

METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS. 

Attorneys for Blackmon-MooringSteamatic Catastophe, Inc. d/b/a BMS 

Catastrophe 

By:________________________________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 13 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: 

 l. I am employed by the law firm of Methfessel & Werbel. 

 2. On December 20, 2007 the undersigned prepared and 

forwarded copies of the the undersigned prepared and forwarded copies 

of the within Notice of Adoption , via ECF, to the following parties: 

 William J. Dubanevich, Esq. 

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP 

5 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, NY 10006 

Attorneys for: Plaintiff 

All Defense Counsel 

 3. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am 

aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am 

subject to punishment. 

 

____________________________________ 

Frank J. Keenan 

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 13 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
**Exhibit 23.4**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

Miller and Lents,Ltd. hereby consents to the use of its name and the information from itsreports regarding its estimates of reserves and future net revenues from theproduction and sale of those reserves for the years ended December 31, 2006,2005, 2004 and 2003 in Pogo Producing Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2006, including the filing of its letter reports asexhibits thereto, and to the incorporation by reference thereof into PogoProducing Company’s previously filed Registration Statement Nos. 33-54969,333-04233, 333-75105, 333-75105-01, 333-75105-02, 333-74861, 333-42426,333-42428, 333-60800, 333-67324, 333-65548, 333-86856, 333-98205, 333-102775,333-115130, 333-86417, 333-126097, 333-130557 and 333-136926.
|        |   | Miller and Lents, Ltd. |
|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   |                   |
|   |   | By:                    |   | /s/ Carl D. Richard |
|   |   |                   |   | Carl D. Richard |
|   |   |                   |   | Senior Vice President |

 

Houston, Texas

February 28, 2007

 

----
ex10_6.htm














SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












This Seventeenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2010, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on sixteen prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:












Agreement







1.           Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:







2.1           Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $246,800 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


 

 


is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2010, to provide as follows:







2.1           Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $251,736 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.













	
2.

	
All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






















Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







Thomas Martin                                                                           By:           







______________________                                                   Name:     Jose Luis Laparte 


                               Its:           President