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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5776 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5776

    To allow reviews of certain families' incomes every 3 years for 
   purposes of determining eligibility for certain Federal assisted 
                           housing programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2014

 Mr. Perlmutter (for himself and Mr. Stivers) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To allow reviews of certain families' incomes every 3 years for 
   purposes of determining eligibility for certain Federal assisted 
                           housing programs.

    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 ``Tenant Income Verification Relief 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REVIEWS OF FAMILY INCOMES.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of paragraph (1) of section 
3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(a)(1)) 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; 
except that, in the case of any family with a fixed income, as defined 
by the Secretary, after the initial review of the family's income, the 
public housing agency or owner shall not be required to conduct a 
review of the family's income for any year for which such family 
certifies, in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall 
establish, which shall include policies to adjust for inflation-based 
income changes, that 90 percent or more of the income of the family 
consists of fixed income, and that the sources of such income have not 
changed since the previous year, except that the public housing agency 
or owner shall conduct a review of each such family's income not less 
than once every 3 years''.
    (b) Housing Choice Voucher Program.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
8(o)(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437f(o)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``not less than annually'' and 
inserting ``as required by section 3(a)(1) of this Act''.
                                 <all>
```
Schedule of warrants issued by REG to Viant Capital, LLC and ED&F Man Holdings



 Exhibit 4.10 
 Schedule of warrants issued by REG to Viant Capital, LLC and ED&F Man Holdings B.V. 
  

												
	 Date Issued
	  	 Name of Warrant Holders
	  	Number
of Shares	  	 Type of Shares
	  	Exercise
Price	  	 Expiration Date

	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	  41,474	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	  26,956	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	  69,053	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	  10,526	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	100,000	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	Viant Capital, LLC	  	  10,526	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
	 April 25, 2008
	  	ED&F Man Holdings B.V.	  	  22,727	  	Common Stock	  	$	9.50	  	April 25, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30596]



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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

IBM Corporation Enterprise Systems Large Scale Computing Systems 
Division and Its Successors; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

Poughkeepsie, New York--TA-W-29,743
Wappingers Falls, New York--TA-W-29,743A
Kingston, New York--TA-W-29,743B
Somers, New York--TA-W-743C
Hopewell, Junction, New York--TA-W-29,743D
White Plains, New York--TA-W-29,743E

      and

TA-W-29,743F--Kingston Software Manufacturing Division of Software 
Solutions, Kingston, New York

    On March 23, 1995, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of 
Revised Determination on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers at 
IBM Corporation, Poughkeepsie, New York. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on April 5, 1995 (60 FR 17371). The certification 
was subsequently amended to include other locations of the subject 
firm. The amended notice was published in the Federal Register on June 
29, 1995 (60 FR 33850).
    At the request of petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided 
by the company shows that workers of the Kingston Software 
Manufacturing Division of Software Solutions located in Kingston, New 
York provided administrative and support services to IBM's Enterprise 
System. The Department is amending the certification to properly 
reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of IBM Corporation, the Enterprise Systems, Large Scale 
Computing Systems Division, and its successors who are adversely 
affected by imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,743 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Enterprise Systems, Large Scale Computing 
Systems Division, and its successors, of IBM Corporation located in 
Poughkeepsie, Wappingers Falls, Kingston, Somers, Hopewell Junction, 
and White Plains, New York; and workers Kingston Software 
Manufacturing Division of Software Solutions located in Kingston, 
New York providing administrative and support services to IBM's 
Enterprise System who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after March 23, 1993, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, on this 5th Day of December 1995.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-30596 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65660-65661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30936]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. 
Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance 
with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results 
of federally funded research and development. Foreign patent 
applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage 
for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing.

ADDRESSES: Licensing information and a copy of the U.S. patent 
application referenced below may be obtained by contacting Robert 
Benson at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of 
Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-
3804 (telephone 301/496-7056 ext 267; fax 301/402-0220). A signed 
Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive a copy of 
the patent application.

Immunogenic Chimeras Comprising Nucleic Acid Sequences Encoding 
Endoplasmic Reticulum Signal Sequence Peptides and at Least One Other 
Peptide, and Their Uses in Vaccines and Disease Treatments

Nicholas P. Restifo, Steven A. Rosenberg, Jack R. Bennink, Igor 
Bacik, and Jonathan W. Yewdell (NCI)
Serial Number 08/032,902 filed March 17, 1993

    This invention concerns the use of chimeric peptides as vaccines 
for the cellular immune system. One portion of the chimeric peptide, 
the ER signal peptide, serves to transport the chimeric 

[[Page 65661]]
peptide from the cytoplasm to the ER. Once in the ER, the other portion 
of the chimeric peptide associates with class I MHC molecules and 
together they form a complex which is presented on the surface of the 
cell. The complex activates cytotoxic lymphocytes which react with the 
complex, leading to expansion of CTLs which kill cells presenting the 
particular complex. The MHC complexing portion of the chimeric peptide 
is taken from cancer antigens or viral antigens. Thus the invention is 
a broad general method of vaccination that activates the cellular 
immune system. DNA constructs and expression vectors encoding the 
chimeric peptides are also claimed. The method has been shown to work 
as a treatment for cancer in mice. It has been PCT filed, PCT/US94/
02897.

    Dated: December 8, 1995.
Barbara M. McGarey,
Deputy Director, Office of Technology Transfer.
[FR Doc. 95-30936 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### MRS. NORA C. FLOYD v. FRANK DICKEY and WAYNE CRISP.

(Filed 27 February, 1957.)

Automobiles § 5áf—

Where action is instituted more than a year after the cause of action accrued, so that plaintiff does not have the benefit of G.S. 20-71.1, nonsuit is properly entered as to the alleged superior when there is no evidence that the driver was operating the truck in the course of his employment as an agent or employee of the superior.

*590Appeal by plaintiff from *Nettles, J.,*November Term 1956 of CHEROKEE.

Plaintiff’s intestate was struck and killed on 25 May 1954 by a motor vehicle owned by defendant Dickey and, at the time of the accident, operated by defendant Crisp. This action was begun 16 February 1956. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence defendant Dickey moved for nonsuit. The motion was allowed. Thereupon plaintiff submitted to a voluntary nonsuit as to the defendant Crisp and appealed.

*Frank Ferguson and T. D. Bryson for 'plaintiff appellant.*

*McKeever & Edwards, F. 0. Christopher, and McKinley Edwards for defendant Dickey, appellee.*

PeR Curiam.

Dickey’s asserted liability is predicated on the theory of *respondeat superior.*There is no evidence to show that Crisp in moving the truck was the agent of Dickey and about his master’s business. Plaintiff does not have the benefit of G.S. 20-71.1 as she waited more than one year after the cause of action accrued before instituting suit. The judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit
10.10

     

     

    July 15,
2009

    


    Prosperity
Bank

    777
Walker Street, Suite L140

    Houston,
Texas 77002

    Attention
of Randall R. Reeves, President-Houston Area

    


    Re:           Amendment
no. 2 to Credit Agreement Dated as of May 11, 2009, between Sanders Morris
Harris Group Inc. and Prosperity Bank

    


    Ladies
and Gentlemen:

    


    Reference
is made to the Credit Agreement Dated as of May 11, 2009 (the “Credit
Agreement”), between Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (“Borrower”) and
Prosperity Bank (“Lender”), pursuant to which Lender made a $25,000,000 term
loan to Borrower on the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement.
Terms used herein with their initial letter capitalized shall have the meaning
assigned to them in the Credit Agreement unless otherwise defined
herein.

    


    The
purpose of this letter is to amend the optional prepayments provision set forth
in Section 2.04 of Article II of the Credit Agreement.

    


    In
consideration of the foregoing and the following mutual agreements, the Lender
and Borrower agree as follows:

    


    1.           The
final sentence of Section 2.04 of the Credit Agreement is deleted and the
following substituted in place thereof:

    


    Each
prepayment of the Loan pursuant to this Section 2.04 shall be
applied to the principal repayment installments thereof in inverse order of
maturity; provided,
however, notwithstanding and in addition to the foregoing, the Borrower
may prepay a maximum of three regularly scheduled monthly principal payments in
any calendar quarter, and such prepayments if made shall be applied to the
principal repayment installments thereof in the direct order of
maturity.

    


    2.           Except
as modified by the foregoing amendment, all terms, conditions, and provisions of
the Credit Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect.

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    
      Prosperity
Bank

      July 15,
2009

      Page
2

    

    
 

    


    Please
acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing amendment by signing this letter
in the space provided below.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    Sanders
Morris Harris Group Inc.

    


    


    By: 
/s/ Rick Berry

      
        

      

    

    Rick
Berry, Chief Financial Officer

    


    


    Accepted
and agreed to this 15th day
of

    July,
2009.

    


    Prosperity
Bank

    


    


    By: 
/s/ Randall R. Reeves

      
        

      

    

    Name:
Randall R. Reeves

    Title:
President-Houston Area
Home ** Our Work ** Reports Library ** SRBC 2022 Annual Report 

# Announcing SRBC's 2022 Annual Report

We are excited to share the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 2022 Annual Report. Among the many topics you’lllearn about:
      - Inaugural year of the  Consumptive Use Mitigation Grant Program
      - More than $100,000 in funding from  Groundwater Level Monitoring Grants
      - Changing rainfall and river flow patterns and their potential impact on our basin
      - The Commission's  Public Water Supply Assistance Program  10-year milestones
      - Partnerships,  policies , advocacy , hydrology studies , river monitoring , interactive maps , dashboards , and more!

We hope you will find our report informative and that it inspires you to support our mission.
SRBC Annual Report 2022
Download as PDF: 2022 Annual Report
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Patricia Niu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2009



/S/ PATRICIA NIUPatricia NiuChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------



                          COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWHEQ, INC.
              CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-A
          REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2007-A


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further
certify pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement for the
above-captioned Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------


Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT H

Jenner & Block Budget Comparison

June 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019

Matter

ID

PROJECT CATEGORY BUDGETED REQUESTED

10006 Criminal Investigation $265,000.00 $175,180.80

10014 DOI Investigation $35,000.00 $11,139.20

10065 Federal Contracts Advice and Counsel $10,000.00 $761.00

10081 FCC Regulatory Advice and Counsel $5,000.00 $496.80

10111 Locate and Mark $2,600,000.00 $2,581,106.90

10146 FPA Advice and Counsel $57,500.00 $93,987.60

10252/10261 Bankr. Employment/Bankr. Admin.$450,000.00 $109,985.50/

$7,868.90

10295 Regulatory Matter $35,000.00 $2,134.60

10309 FERC Interlock Advice $7,000.00 $4,720.70

TOTAL $3,464,500.00 $2,987,382.00

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4749-8 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 17:30:16 Page 1

of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00130-CV

Neil Gallagher; Ronald R. Coleman; Steve Feeken; Gallagher Financial Group, Inc.;

Michael Eastham; Fellowship Financial, LLC; Michael Castellano; Brian R. Cervanka;

Global One Direct, LLC; David A. Shields; Marco Lopez; Salvatore Magaraci; 

Estate Protection Planning, Corp.; Reid Thorburn; Raymon Chadwick, Jr.; 

Walter C. Young; Creative Wealth Designs, LLC; Michael Woods; 

Secured Financial Strategies, LLC; and Wesley Davidson, Appellants

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GV-10-000454, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA-DOYAL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Neil Gallagher; Ronald R. Coleman; Steve Feeken; Gallagher Financial

Group, Inc.; Michael Eastham; Fellowship Financial, LLC; Michael Castellano; Brian R. Cervanka;

Global One Direct, LLC; David A. Shields; Marco Lopez; Salvatore Magaraci; Estate Protection

Planning, Corp.; Reid Thorburn; Raymon Chadwick, Jr.; Walter C. Young; Creative Wealth

Designs,LLC;Michael Woods; Secured Financial Strategies, LLC; and WesleyDavidson (Gallagher

Appellants) have filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal pursuant to settlement with

appellee, The State of Texas.

Counsel for the Gallagher Appellants states that he has conferred with counsel for

additional appellants, who joined the Gallagher Appellants’ notice of appeal, James Craig Orr,
Jerry Neal Orr, John Todd Reagan, Frederick William Rust, Alternative Solutions Insurance

Services, Inc.; Benjamin Milks; Milks & Milks; Bridy S. Ikey; Catherine Sansing; Clement Ng;

Damien Pechacek; David Rice; Greg Chick; James Poe; James S. Ikey; Kenneth J. Franco;

Lighthouse Capital Preservation; Mike Ahlers; Mike Givilancz, Jr.; PC&S, LLC; Shawn Cornett;

Stephen J. Skijus; T.C. Weston; Mark Smith; Niche Investment Group; Razor Financial Services;

and Senior Retirement Planners, and these additional appellants join in the Gallagher Appellants’

motion for dismissal.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: September 6, 2013

2
#### Charles S. Wynn v. Henry A. Longley.

*Sales—Deceit—Damages—Evidence.*

*617In an action for the recovery of damages because of alleged deceit as to quality of a quantity of wool sold, this court holds that the true measure of damages in such cases is the difference between the actual value of the property at the time and place of sale, and what its value would have been had its quality been as represented, and that the trial court erred in awarding damages in behalf of plaintiff in the absence of evidence touching these points.

[Opinion filed April 3, 1889.]

In error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Alexander Clark, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Freeman & Walker, for defendant in error.

Garnett, P. J.

This is an action on the case for deceit in the sale of a quantity of wool by Wynn to Longley.

On the trial before the court without a jury there was a finding against Wynn, the vendor, an assessment of damages at 81,000, and judgment on the finding. The wool was sold in Chicago October 8, 1886, and then or soon thereafter delivered to Longley at the same place. The declaration charges that Wynn knowingly misrepresented the wool to be of a certain kind and thereby deceived and defrauded Longley, the damages being laid at 88,000. Longley claims that the wool which was actually sold and delivered to him was worth less than the price he paid for it,' and less than it would have been worth had it been the kind of wool represented by Wynn.

In the record, however, no evidence is found tending to prove its actual value, or the value it would have borne if the alleged representation had been true, at the time and place of delivery. The general rule in this class of cases is that the measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the property at the time and place of sale, and what its value would have been had it been as represented to be. 2 Sutherland on Damages, 422; Woodworth v. Woodburn, *61820 Ill. 184; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 151; Drew v. Beall, 62 Ill. 164; McClure v. Williams, 65 Ill. 390.

Although Crabtree v. Kile, 21 Ill. 180, seems to conflict with this doctrine, we consider the rule as stated above to be more in consonance with sound reason and fairness-to the parties. The correctness of the rule adopted in Thorne v. McVeagh, 75 Ill. 81, is not denied when applied to the facts of that case, which are materially different from those now before us.

In Carpenter v. First National Bank, 119 Ill. 352, the expression of the opinion is in support of Crabtree v. Kile, but was not necessary to the decision of the case then under consideration, was not put forth as a guide to the court below in a new trial, as the judgment was affirmed, and hence can not be relied on to overthrow the sound rule. The absence of evidence on the points specified is fatal to the judgment. No other error is found. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Hover sed and remanded.*
September 5 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF R .N.T. AND S.P.T., CH ILDREN , Appellant
NO. 14

- 13

- 00377

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed April 11, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.