alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57557-57558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19749]


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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

Order No. 1410


Grant of Authority, Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone, Conroe 
(Montgomery County), Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as

[[Page 57558]]

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board adopts 
the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for '' ... the 
establishment ... of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the City of Conroe, Texas (the Grantee), has made 
application to the Board (FTZ Docket 34-2004, 69 FR 51060, 8/17/04), 
requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone at a site in 
Conroe (Montgomery County), Texas, adjacent to the Houston Customs port 
of entry;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (69 FR 51060, 8/17/04; 69 FR 61635, 10/20/04; and, 69 
FR 74493, 12/14/04); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the 
privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the 
records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 265, atthe site 
described in the application, and subject to the Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of September 2005.

FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES BOARD
Carlos M. Gutierrez.
Secretary of Commerce,Chairman and Executive Officer.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19749 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
STATE v. David Michael REED

365A16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 2, 2018

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Reed, David Michael.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of February 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of February 2018."
STATE v. Samuel Tyler POTTER

22P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 2018

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Potter, Samuel Tyler.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2018."
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp. on Form
10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kirk A. Stingley, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
Report 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.





March 10,
2010





/s/
      Kirk A. Stingley




Kirk A.
Stingley,


Chief
Financial Officer





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 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4149 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4149

  To amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend the Veterans 
         Retraining Assistance Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2014

Ms. Brownley of California (for herself and Mr. Takano) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend the Veterans 
         Retraining Assistance Program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Help Hire our Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF VETERANS RETRAINING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 211 of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
56; 38 U.S.C. 4100 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``March 31'' and 
        inserting ``September 30''; and
            (2) in subsection (k), by striking ``March 31'' and 
        inserting ``September 30''.

SEC. 3. TRANSFER FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND TO 
              VETERANS RETRAINING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    Subsection (c) of section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Transfer to department of veterans affairs.--Out of 
        amounts in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
        there is hereby appropriated $270,000,000 to be transferred to 
        the `Veterans Benefits Administration--Readjustment Benefits' 
        account of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Veterans 
        Retraining Assistance Program under section 211 of the VOW to 
        Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-56; 38 U.S.C. 4100 
        note), to remain available until expended.''.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 11127 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Chadwick Daray Heath,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09
- CR
- 329 - 3

**________________ ______________**  Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Chadwick Daray Heath has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Heath has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11127 Document: 00516735326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023No. 22
- 11127

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-11127 Document: 00516735326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
Exhibit  10.1


EX 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
ATMEL CORPORATION
2005 STOCK PLAN
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED MAY 18, 2011)
The Atmel Corporation 2005 Stock Plan, as amended and restated May 18, 2011 (as amended to date, the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Amendments to Section 4(a).


		
	(a)
	The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the term “133,000,000” and substituting the term “158,000,000” in its place and stead.


		
	(b)
	Footnote 1 to Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: “1. Includes 58,000,000 Shares approved by the Company's Stockholders on May 14, 2008, 19,000,000 Shares approved by the Company's Stockholders on May 18, 2011 and 25,000,000 Shares approved by the Company's Stockholders on May 9, 2013.”


		
	(c)
	The second paragraph of Section 4(a) is hereby amended by inserting the following after the fourth sentence therein: “Shares that would otherwise be issued or delivered under the Plan but are not issued or delivered because the Shares are repurchased by the Company with Option exercise proceeds will not become available for future grant or sale under the Plan.”


		
	2.
	Amendments to Section 4(b).


		
	(a)
	The second paragraph of Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the words “but prior to May 9, 2013” after the date “May 18, 2011” in each of the second and fifth lines thereof.


		
	(b)
	Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting a new paragraph at the end thereof as follows:


“Any Shares subject to Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, and Stock Purchase Rights granted on or after May 9, 2013 will be counted against the numerical limits of this Section 4 as one and 57/100 (1.57) Shares for every one (1) Share subject thereto. Further, if Shares acquired pursuant to any Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, and Stock Purchase Rights granted on or after May 9, 2013 are forfeited or repurchased by the Company and would otherwise return to the Plan pursuant to this Section 4, one and 57/100 (1.57) times the number of Shares so forfeited or repurchased will return to the Plan and will again become available for issuance.
		
	3.
	Amendments to Section 5(c).


		
	(a)
	Section 5(c)(ii) of the Plan is hereby amended (i) by inserting the words “or SAR exchange program” after the words “Option Exchange Program” and (ii) by inserting the words “or SAR” after each instance of the word “Option” in the second line thereof.


		
	(b)
	Section 5(c)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended (i) by inserting the words “or SARs” after the word “Options” in the first line thereof.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending December 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O. Joe Caldarelli,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 ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ O. JOE CALDARELLI      |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|
| O. Joe Caldarelli          |   |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* |   |
| February 6, 2008      |   |

 

----
# Official Journal C 194/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 194 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 616 June 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 194

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 616 June 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2018/C 194/01 | Passenger Name Records (PNR) — Competent authorities — List of competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (This list reflects the authorities entitled, in each Member State, to request or receive PNR data or the result of processing those data from their national Passenger Information Unit (PIU) or for the purpose of Article 9(3) of Directive (EU) 2016/681 directly from the PIU of any other Member State only when necessary in cases of emergency) | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2018/C 194/01

Passenger Name Records (PNR) — Competent authorities — List of competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (This list reflects the authorities entitled, in each Member State, to request or receive PNR data or the result of processing those data from their national Passenger Information Unit (PIU) or for the purpose of Article 9(3) of Directive (EU) 2016/681 directly from the PIU of any other Member State only when necessary in cases of emergency)

(This list reflects the authorities entitled, in each Member State, to request or receive PNR data or the result of processing those data from their national Passenger Information Unit (PIU) or for the purpose of Article 9(3) of Directive (EU) 2016/681 directly from the PIU of any other Member State only when necessary in cases of emergency)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 10.25


                    TENTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE

          This Tenth Amendment to Lease dated February 4, 1997 by
and between Madison Reading Associates L.L.C., successor in
interest to Crown Life Insurance Company, (hereafter called
Landlord) and Berks County Bank, a Pennsylvania chartered
commercial bank (hereafter called Tenant) having its principle
business office at 400 Washington St., Reading, Pa. 19601.

          The above referenced parties wish to amend the Ninth
Amendment to Lease dated May 29, 1996, Eighth Amendment to Lease
dated January 22, 1996, the Seventh Amendment to Lease dated
July 27, 1995, the Sixth Amendment to Lease dated November 9,
1994, the Fifth Amendment to Lease dated October 10, 1994, the
Fourth Amendment dated November 11, 1993, the Second Amendment to
Lease dated March 31, 1993, the First Amendment to Lease dated
November 27, 1991 and the Lease dated November 1, 1988 as
follows:

               1.   The portion of space known as suite 1205
containing approximately 845 rentable square feet shall be rented
commencing February 10, 1996 and expiring October 31, 1998 at a
monthly base rental of $916.00.  Landlord agrees to provide and
install new carpet and paint entire premises at Landlords' cost
and expense.

               2.   In reference to Paragraph 502(a) and 502(b)
of the Lease, Tenants' prorata share for this additional
845 square feet shall be .79% and the base year shall be 1996.

               3.   Additionally, suite 801, 804, Mezzanine and
Basement Storage (B1) shall be extended at the same rental rates
and shall expire October 31, 1998.

          Except as stated above, the terms and conditions of the
Lease remain in full force and effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Tenth Amendment to Lease to be duly executed as a sealed
instrument as of the day and year first above written.

Landlord                           Tenant

Madison Reading                    Berks County Bank
   Associates, L.L.C.

By:/s/Ephrim Hofenfeld             By:/s/ Nelson R. Oswald       
     Managing Member                         President

Attest or Witness:
/s/ Maria L. Ledesone                  /s/ Patricia A. Yocum
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4217 

To prohibit a reduction in funding for the defense commissary system in 

fiscal year 2015 pending the report of the Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2014 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit a reduction in funding for the defense commissary system in fiscal year 2015 pending the report 

of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

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 ‘‘Military Commissary 

5 Sustainment Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4217 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REDUCTION IN FUNDING FOR THE 

2 DEFENSE COMMISSARY SYSTEM IN FISCAL 

3 YEAR 2015 PENDING THE REPORT OF THE 

4 MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT 

5 MODERNIZATION COMMISSION. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

7 monthly amount of funds made available by the Depart8 ment of Defense for the defense commissary system dur9 ing fiscal year 2015 may not be reduced below the average 

10 monthly amount of funds made available for that system 

11 during fiscal year 2014 until the date of the report of the 

12 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

13 Commission under section 674(f) of the National Defense 

14 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

15 239; 126 Stat. 1792). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. J. Guadalupe Garay GALINDO

364P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

J. Guadalupe Galindo, for Galindo, J. Guadalupe Garay.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of October 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
Order filed September 21, 2017 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00572-CV

____________

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant

V.

T. R. W., Appellee

On Appeal from the 207th District Court

Hays County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-1887

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due September 15, 2017. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 16, 2017, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### James DORSEY, Petitioner v. ALLIANCE ABROAD AND INS, Respondents

No. CIV. 03-158-PH.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

July 29, 2003.

James Dorsey, Portland, ME, Pro se.

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

HORNBY, District Judge.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court on July 10, 2003, with a copy to the petitioner, her Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Motion Seeking Injunctive Relief. The time within which to file objections expired on July 28, 2003, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the petitioner that failure to object would waive his right to *de novo*review and appeal.

It is therefore Ordered that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby Adopted. The petition is dismissed.

So Ordered.

*RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2241 MOTION SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF*

James Dorsey has filed a pleading styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief on behalf of foreign exchange students from Russia who hate their jobs at a Mc-Donalds Restaurant in the Portland, Maine area. (Docket No. 1.) He names Alliance Abroad, its employee Dannette Bonner, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service as defendants. Dorsey wants this Court to enjoin the defendants from harassing and threatening to deport the students, conduct aimed at preventing them from quitting their jobs. In Dorsey’s view this situation it tantamount to involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and immigration laws.

While Dorsey’s intentions seem nothing but altruistic, there is no habeas relief that this Court can provide. For one, it is evident that Dorsey lacks standing to bring a § 2241 petition on behalf of these *10foreign exchange students. *See Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush,*310 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). For another, the students are not under any governmental restraint or in governmental custody. Dorsey’s allegations pertain solely to the conduct of Dannette Bonner towards the students and his follow-up contact with Alliance Abroad when the students informed them of their predicament. Dorsey nowhere alleges that immigration authorities have taken any action vis-á-vis the students. Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Dorsey’s petition.

*NOTICE*

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which *de novo*review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within ten (10) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to *de novo*review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

July 10, 2003.
#### STATE ex rel. Eugene WRIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2277.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Wright, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 57,585; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 01-250.

Denied. Repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).