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

Calendar No. 16

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 257

[Report No. 106–4]

To state the policy of the United States regarding the deployment of a

missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United

States against limited ballistic missile attack.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 20, 1999

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. AKAKA, Mr.

SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. MACK, Mr. COVERDELL,

Mr. CRAIG, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. KYL, Mr. HELMS,

Mr. LUGAR, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. INHOFE, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. BOND,

Mr. ROTH, Mr. HATCH, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. GREGG,

Mr. BURNS, Mr. ENZI, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ASHCROFT,

Mr. GRAMS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. FRIST, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr.

SMITH of Oregon, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr.

CRAPO, and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

Reported by Mr. WARNER, without amendment

A BILL

To state the policy of the United States regarding the deployment of a missile defense system capable of defending
2

S 257 RS

the territory of the United States against limited ballistic

missile attack.

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 ‘‘National Missile De5 fense Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

7 It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon

8 as is technologically possible an effective National Missile

9 Defense system capable of defending the territory of the

10 United States against limited ballistic missile attack

11 (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).

Calendar No. 16

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 257

[Report No. 106–4]

A BILL

To state the policy of the United States regarding

States against limited ballistic missile attack.ble of defending the territory of the Unitedthe deployment of a missile defense system capaFEBRUARY 12, 1999

Reported without amendment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7654
KELVIN WATFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W.P. ROGERS, Regional Director; D.M. VAUGHN, Warden; E. WILLIS, Treatment Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00104-GBL) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Watford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kelvin Watford appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See Watford v. Rogers , No. 1:06-cv-00104-GBL (E.D. Va. entered June 30, 2006; entered Sept. 6, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## FY 2013 President’s Budget and SJI Budget Request to Congress

The White House released the FY 2013 President’s Budget on February 13th, which includes $5,121,000 for SJI. The President and the Office of Management and Budget continue to support SJI’s mission. The funding requested will enable SJI to continue addressing issues impacting the state courts, foster innovative solutions, and share information on successful approaches nationwide. The FY 2013 President’s Budget in its entirety can be viewed online. The President’s Budget for SJI is available on the SJI website. In conjunction with the President’s Budget, SJI also submitted its detailed budget request to Congress. SJI’s budget request is available on the SJI website.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Judicial College  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Second Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
EXHIBIT B 12

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1662-13 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 17:03:55 Page 1

of 25
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ANDERSON, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-56891

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04271-DDP-E

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

1. The district court correctly dismissed Anderson’s complaint for failure to

state a claim under Nevada Revised Statutes § 97A.140(4). That section’s notice

and opportunity-to-avoid provisions are triggered only if a credit card issuer

FILED

MAR 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Page 2 of 3

unilaterally changes a term or condition that adversely affects or increases the cost

to the cardholder of using the credit card. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 97A.140(4)(a), (b). 

Here, Anderson’s “Cardmember Agreement” with HSBC Nevada, N.A. (HSBC)

entitled him to a promotional interest rate unless he defaulted on his payments; in

that event, Anderson agreed that HSBC could increase his interest rate up to a

default rate. When Anderson defaulted, HSBC increased his interest rate up to the

agreed-upon default rate, per the terms of the Agreement. HSBC thus applied,

rather than unilaterally changed, an agreed-upon term or condition. Accordingly,

the district court correctly held that § 97A.140(4) did not require HSBC to provide

Anderson with further notice or an opportunity to avoid the additional charges.

2. The district court also correctly held that § 97A.140(4)(b) is preempted

by the National Bank Act and its implementing regulations. See 12 U.S.C. § 21 et

seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008. Anderson does not challenge the district court’s holding

that § 97A.140(4)(a) is preempted, so the only question before us is whether

subsection (4)(b) is divisible from subsection (4)(a) for preemption purposes. It is

not. The two provisions are explicitly joined by a conjunctive “and,” and the right

to avoid a change under subsection (4)(b) depends on receiving advance notice of

the change under subsection (4)(a). We agree with the district court that the most

logical reading of the statute is that it aims to allow cardholders to avoid the
Page 3 of 3

imposition of adverse new terms after receiving the prescribed 30 days’ notice,

rather than to seek refunds after the fact.

AFFIRMED.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.91.2

     

    AMENDMENT
TO

    U.S.
Facilities, Inc.

    Stockholders’
Agreement

    


    THIS
AMENDMENT is to the STOCKHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated as of the
31st
day of May, 2000 by and among U.S. Facilities, Inc., A Delaware corporation (the
“Company”) and those persons whose names and addresses are listed on Schedule A
attached to the Agreement (each a “Stockholder” and
collectively, the “Stockholders.”)

    


    RECITALS

    WHEREAS, Section 2.6, the Push-Pull
Provision of the Agreement,  gives Stockholders who own forty percent
(40%) of the issued and outstanding securities of the Company the power to
compel all Stockholders of the Company to dispose of their interest in the
Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement;
and

    


    WHEREAS, the Stockholders and the
Company believe it is in their common interest to amend the Agreement by
deleting Section 2.6 of the Agreement.

    


    NOW THEREFORE, the Company and the
Stockholders, in consideration of the foregoing and intending to be legally
bound hereby agree as follows:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Section
      2.6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its
  entirety.

            


    

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              Section
      2.7 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the reference to Section
      2.6, with the balance of Section 2.7 remaining in full force and effect;
      and

            


    

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              Except
      as specifically set forth in this AMENDMENT, the terms and conditions of
      the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect;
      provided that each reference to the Agreement shall hereinafter refer to
      the Agreement as amended by this
AMENDMENT.

            


    

    
 

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this AMENDMENT has been executed by and between each of the
parties hereto as of the date first above written.

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	
                U.S.
      FACILITIES, INC.

              	
                /s/ James
      Dobrowolski

              
	 	
                By:
      /s/ James
      Dobrowolski

              	
                James
      C. Dobrowolski

              
	 	
                Title:
      President and CEO

              	
                 

              
	 	 
      	 
      
	 	
                PRWT
      Services, Inc.

              	
                /s/ Thomas A.
      Leonard

              
	 	 
      	
                Thomas
      A. Leonard

              
	 	 
      	 
      
	 	
                By:
      /s/ Harold T.
      Epps

              	
                /s/ Ernest
      Agresto

              
	 	
                Title

              	
                Ernest
      J. Agresto
No. 1,823.

#### BOEHLER, Respondent, *v.*HANSON et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Missoula County.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided May 15, 1902.

*Messrs. Duncan &*Draffen> and *Mr. C. B.*Nolan, for Respondent.

Pee, Curiam.

Respondent's motion is granted, and tlie appeal is accordingly dismissed, for the reason that no transcript has been filed herein.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZomaxIncorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, RichardBarnes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  March 15, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Richard  Barnes                                   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Richard  Barnes                                       |
|                             |   | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1
**Exhibit 15**

**Letter Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

November 8, 2006

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549 

Commissioners: 

We are aware that our report dated November 8, 2006 on our review of interim financial information of Alfa Corporation (the “Company”) for the three andnine month periods ended September 30, 2006 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3D datedAugust 23, 1994 and on Form S-8 dated September 29, 1993 and March 14, 1994. 

Very truly yours, 

**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**
# Samuel C. Pomeroy: A Featured Biography

**

----

Born in Southampton, Massachusetts, in 1816, Samuel C. Pomeroy began his career as a school teacher. He served in the Massachusetts house of representatives before leading a group of settlers west to Kansas Territory in 1854. An ardent abolitionist, Pomeroy participated in skirmishes between abolitionists and proponents of slavery on the Kansas-Missouri border and served as chairman of the Lawrence, Kansas, public safety committee. He joined the new Republican Party and served as a delegate to its first national convention in 1856. Elected as one of Kansas’s first senators in 1861, Pomeroy was a Radical Republican who called for citizenship and voting rights for formerly enslaved persons after the Civil War. He was also an early proponent for woman suffrage. He served as the president of the National Equal Rights Association in 1867 and campaigned vigorously for “universal suffrage.” On December 7, 1868, Pomeroy introduced a bill for a constitutional amendment that stated, “The basis of suffrage in the United States shall be that of citizenship, and all native or naturalized citizens shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of the elective franchise.” The Senate never took up Pomeroy’s bill. Defeated for reelection in 1872, Pomeroy retired to Whitinsville, Massachusetts, where he died in 1891.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
MACROCHEM CORPORATION

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE WERE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:

                                   Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                      September 30,         September 30,
                                  --------------------    -------------------
                                    1997        1996        1997      1996
                                    ----        ----        ----      ----
                                    
Total income used for primary
   earnings per share            $( 1,019)   $(   620)   $( 2,835)  $( 2,515)
                                   ======      ======      ======     ======

Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding       16,258      15,522      16,015     15,135
                                   ======      ======      ======     ======

Primary earnings per share       $(  0.06)   $(  0.04)   $(  0.18)  $(  0.17)
                                   ======      ======      ======     ======


Note: Fully diluted earnings per share are not presented since the results
would be anti-dilutive.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"REPORT") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "EXCHANGE ACT") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

      Agustin Garcia Mansilla, the Chief Executive Officer and Gustavo Castelli,
the Chief Financial Officer of Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Societe Anonyme,
each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

      1.    the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

      2.    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Societe Anonyme.

Date: June 30, 2005

/s/ Agustin Garcia Mansilla
__________________________________
Name: Agustin Garcia Mansilla
Title: Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Gustavo Castelli
__________________________________
Name: Gustavo Castelli
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer and as chief financial officer of MacroChem Corporation
(the "Company"), do hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

        1) the Company's Form 10-Q 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 Company's Form 10-Q fairly presents,
           in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
           operations of the Company.




                                    /s/ Robert J. Palmisano
                                    --------------------------
                                    Robert J. Palmisano
                                    Chief Executive Officer




                                    /s/ Bernard R. Patriacca
                                    --------------------------
                                    Bernard R. Patriacca
                                    Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  August 14, 2002
      -------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,774]


Sychip, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Murata Electronics 
North America, Inc. (MENA), Including Workers Whose Unemployment 
Insurance (UI) Wages Are Paid Through Either Adminstaff or MENA, Plano, 
TX; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on September 23, 2009, applicable to workers of Sychip, Inc., Plano, 
Texas. The notice was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 
2009 (74 FR 59254). The notice was amended on October 21, 2009 to 
include on-site leased workers from Adminstaff. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 58052).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the production of wireless modules.
    New information shows that Sychip, Inc. is a wholly owned 
subsidiary of Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (MENA). Since 
January 1, 2010, workers separated from employment at the subject firm 
had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) 
tax account for Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (MENA). Prior to 
January 1, 2010, workers of the subject firm had their waged reported 
under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for 
Administaff.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect these matters.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected as downstream 
producers to Honeywell International, a TAA Certified firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-70,774 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Sychip, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Murata 
Electronics North America, Inc. (MENA), including workers whose 
unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through Adminstaff, and 
including workers reported under a tax account for MENA, Plano, 
Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after May 27, 2008 through September 23, 2011, and all workers in 
the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on the date of certification through two years from the 
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2010.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12113 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P