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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4404 

To direct the Attorney General to acquire data, for each calendar year, 

about sexual offenses, including rape, that occur aboard aircraft. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2014 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself and Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to acquire data, for each 

calendar year, about sexual offenses, including rape, that 

occur aboard aircraft. 

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 ‘‘Sexual Assault Report5 ing on Aircraft Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘SARA Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATISTICS RELATING TO SEXUAL OFFENSES THAT 

7 OCCUR ABOARD AIRCRAFT. 

8 Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United 

9 States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4404 IH

1 each calendar year, about sexual offenses, including rape, 

2 that occur aboard aircraft. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SCPR-14-0000534
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN RE SUE LIN CHONG, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE (By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Ginoza,

assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Petitioner Sue Lin Chong’s petition to resign and surrender her license to practice law in the State of Hawai# i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and of the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Sue Lin Chong, attorney number 3659, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai# i, March 28, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-14-0000534 28-MAR-2014 10:57 AM
kblb_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 






 




  





3











  






 





 


4
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

 
 



 
 April 19, 2013 
 Dear Stephen, 
 As you may know, the company will no longer be offering the
long-term cash incentive plan (“LTIP”) starting in fiscal year 2014 and going forward. In your offer letter dated December 15, 2012, you were offered a $750,000 target bonus under the LTIP to be approved for all executives for FY14.

 Since the company is no longer offering this long-term incentive vehicle, instead of the $750,000 target
bonus, Symantec has decided to provide you with an additional grant of performance restricted shares (“PRUs”) and restricted shares (“RSUs”) as set forth in this addendum to your December 15th offer letter. All of the other terms and conditions of your
December 15th offer letter remain the same.

 Additional Equity Grants 
 Upon your acceptance of this addendum, Symantec’s Compensation Committee will grant you the following long-term incentives, to be allocated as follows: 

 

	 	•	 	 $300,000 in performance restricted shares (PRUs), under the terms of the plan to be approved for all executives for FY14; and



  

	 	•	 	 $450,000 in restricted shares (RSUs), under the terms of the company’s existing equity plan (with four year vesting and a one year cliff).



 The specific number of PRU and RSU shares that will be granted to you in FY14 will be calculated based on
the value of Symantec’s stock at the time the grants are formally approved and made by the Compensation Committee. 
 Employment Status

 This addendum does not constitute a contract of employment for any specific period of time but
creates an “employment at will” relationship. This means that you do not have a contract of employment for any particular duration. You are free to resign at any time. Similarly, Symantec is free to terminate your employment at any time
for any reason with or without Cause. Any statements or representation to the contrary, or contradicting any provisions of this letter, are superseded by your December 15th offer letter and this addendum. Participation in any of Symantec’s stock or benefit programs is not assurance of
continued employment for any particular period of time. Any modification of this form must be in writing and signed by the Company CEO. 

  
 Symantec
Corporation World Headquarters  — 350 Ellis Street Mountain View, CA 94043 United States  — Phone: +1 650-527-8000

 Symantec Confidential 









 



 
  

 Please review this addendum and confirm your acceptance by the end of business on
May 3, 2013, by signing in the space indicated below, and emailing (scanning) to scott_taylor@symantec.com and bettina_koblick@symantec.com. 
 Sincerely, 
 /s/ JESSE CONNELL 

Jesse Connell 

Senior Director, Global Talent Acquisition 
 I accept this addendum to my offer of employment dated December 15, 2012, 
  

					
	 /s/ STEPHEN GILLETT
	 	5/3/13	 	
	Stephen Gillett	 	Date	 	 

  
 Symantec Corporation World
Headquarters  — 350 Ellis Street Mountain View, CA 94043 United States  — Phone: +1 650-527-8000 

Symantec Confidential
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Sidney MITCHELL

No. COA17-706

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Stephen R. Kerrigan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coinmach Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 

 
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: February 14, 2006      /s/ Stephen R. Kerrigan Stephen R. Kerrigan    Chief Executive Officer
##### 



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
    /s/ Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerNovember 8, 2005 The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to
be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Council on Disability

      ( print page 5224)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 272-2004 (voice), (202) 272-2074 (TTY), (202) 272-2022 (fax),                         *mquigley@ncd.gov*                         (e-mail).                     

*Agency Mission:*                         The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Its overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all people with disabilities, including people from culturally diverse backgrounds, regardless of the nature or significance of the disability; and to empower people with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.                     

*Accommodations:*                         Those needing sign language interpreters or other disability accommodations should notify NCD at least one week before this meeting.                     

*Language Translation:*                         In accordance with E.O. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, those people with disabilities who are limited English proficient and seek translation services for this meeting should notify NCD at least one week before this meeting.                     

*Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/Environmental Illness:*                         People with multiple chemical sensitivity/environmental illness must reduce their exposure to volatile chemical substances to attend this meeting. To reduce such exposure, NCD requests that attendees not wear perfumes or scented products at this meeting. Smoking is prohibited in meeting rooms and surrounding areas.                     

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Ethel D. Briggs, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 05-1941 Filed 1-28-05; 1:37 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P
#### Wanas WALLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-2259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

Wanas Walls, Mayo, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna M. Hoffmann, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Wanas Walls appeals an order rendered by the circuit court, which summarily denied his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. At the time the trial court ruled on this motion, Walls had a final appeal pending in this court. The circuit court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. Its order is properly deemed a nullity. *See Leonard v. State,*835 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA), *review denied,*845 So.2d 891 (Fla.2003).

Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order of April 15, 2003. On remand, we direct the circuit court to either dismiss the motion with leave to refile or stay proceedings on the motion pending resolution of appellant’s direct appeal and, thereafter, enter a new ruling on the motion. *See Leonard; Perez v. State,*834 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(en banc).

STEVENSON, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 176A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.176.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 176A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 532 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.176.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 176A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 532 July 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 176A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fourth supplement to the 28th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 176A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fourth supplement to the 28th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
David A. PEREZ v. Laurie S. PEREZ

No. 100P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Elaine H. Ashley, William W. Jordan, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Perez, Laurie S.

David A. Perez, Attorney at Law, Thomasville, for Perez, David A.

*855***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of April 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 4th of April 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of April 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEEVAN KUMAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74135

Agency No. A097-102-281

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 

Jeevan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUL 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74135

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding where

Kumar provided inconsistent testimony regarding whether he had contact with

police during the 12-month period between June 1999 and June 2000. See Singh v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the adverse

credibility finding is supported by the IJ’s negative assessment of Kumar’s

demeanor due to non-responsive answers and long pauses in his testimony. See

Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given

to credibility determinations that are based on demeanor). In the absence of

credible testimony, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Kumar’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not

credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,

substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156–57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROY ALAN WRIGHT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-146 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephania A. Gournaris Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 10.20**MakeMusic, Inc. Board Compensation Plan**Effective January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006**   **Eligibility:** All members of the board of directors of MakeMusic, Inc. who are not (i) employees of MakeMusic,Inc., (ii) otherwise being compensated by MakeMusic, Inc. or (iii) representatives of 5% or greatershareholders.   **Cash Fee:** Each eligible director shall be paid a cash fee of $3,000 per calendar quarter for board membership.In addition, director serving as a chairperson of one or more committees of the board of directorsshall be paid an additional $2,000 per calendar quarter.   **Equity:** Stock option grant for each eligible director as follows: § non-qualified stock option to purchase 4,000 shares of common stock  § issued under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan  § grant date shall be the date of board approval of this compensation plan  § exercise price shall be the fair market value of common stock as of dateof grant  § 7-year term  § vesting schedule: **•** 333 shares on the last day of each month beginning January 31,2006 and ending November 30, 2006  **•** 337 shares on December 31, 2006 § in the event the director’s service as a director terminates for anyreason or the director is no longer an eligible director, as defined bythis plan, vesting shall immediately terminate but the director shall beentitled to exercise the option for any vested shares through the remainingterm of the option
# Official Journal C 314/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 314 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5713 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 314

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5713 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 314/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7323 — Nordic Capital/GHD Verwaltung) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 314/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7327 — AdP/BBI/IFC/Marguerite/TAV/ZAIC) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 314/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7323 — Nordic Capital/GHD Verwaltung) (1)

1

2014/C 314/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7327 — AdP/BBI/IFC/Marguerite/TAV/ZAIC) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 314/03 | List of appointments made by the Council — January-July 2014 (social field) | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 314/04 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| 2014/C 314/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 24 February 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39984 OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange — Rapporteur: Hungary | 5 |
| 2014/C 314/06 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange (AT.39984) | 6 |
| 2014/C 314/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39984 — OPCOM/Romanian Power exchange) (notified under document C(2014) 1342 final) | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 314/03

List of appointments made by the Council — January-July 2014 (social field)

2

European Commission

2014/C 314/04

Euro exchange rates

4

2014/C 314/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 24 February 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39984 OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange — Rapporteur: Hungary

5

2014/C 314/06

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange (AT.39984)

6

2014/C 314/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39984 — OPCOM/Romanian Power exchange) (notified under document C(2014) 1342 final)

(notified under document C(2014) 1342 final)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Lynn SHUMATE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50610.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2003.

Filed May 20, 2003.

Amended Aug. 25, 2003.

Siri Shetty, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant.

Mi Yung Claire Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Pennie M. Carlos, Assistant U.S. Attorney (argued), United States Attorney’s Office, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion in this case, which appears at slip op. 6649 (9th Cir.2003),1 is hereby amended as follows: the sentence commencing on the first line of slip op. 66572 is hereby amended to read: “In other words, solicitation may be included in the definition of the predicate offense for the purposes of § 4B1.1.5”

*853With the above amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

1

. *See also,*329 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2003).

2

. *See also,*329 F.3d at 1030.