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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3869 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2022 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. E–3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the 

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, on a 

7 basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 

8 State, a national of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’. 

9 (b) EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.—Section 212 of the 

10 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 

11 amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3869 IS

1 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) 

2 (as added by section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108– 

3 449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as subsection (u); and 

4 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) 

5 (as added by section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108– 

6 77 (117 Stat. 941)) the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) In the case of an attestation filed with re8 spect to a national of Ireland described in section 

9 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), the employer is, and will remain 

10 during the period of authorized employment of such 

11 Irish national, a participant in good standing in the 

12 E-Verify program described in section 403(a) of the 

13 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon14 sibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).’’. 

15 (c) APPLICATION ALLOCATION.—Paragraph (11) of 

16 section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

17 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)) is amended to read as follows: 

18 ‘‘(11)(A) The Secretary of State may approve initial 

19 applications submitted for aliens described in section 

20 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) only as follows: 

21 ‘‘(i) For applicants who are nationals of the 

22 Commonwealth of Australia, not more than 10,500 

23 for a fiscal year. 

24 ‘‘(ii) For applicants who are nationals of Ire25 land, not more than a number equal to the difVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:14 Mar 19, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3869.IS S3869

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3869 IS

1 ference between 10,500 and the number of applica2 tions approved in the prior fiscal year for aliens who 

3 are nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia. 

4 ‘‘(B) The approval of an application described under 

5 subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be deemed for numerical con6 trol purposes to have occurred on September 30 of the 

7 prior fiscal year. 

8 ‘‘(C) The numerical limitation under subparagraph 

9 (A) shall only apply to principal aliens and not to the 

10 spouses or children of such aliens.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### C. L. HINSON v. GEORGE H. DUVAL et ex.

(Filed 13 October, 1926.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bond, J.,*-at February Term, 1926, of LENOIR.

Civil action for damages brought by plaintiff husband against bis wife’s parents for alienating tbe affections of bis wife and causing ber to desert him.

From a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*Shaw, Jones & Jones for plaintiff.*

*Bouse & Bouse for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe record contains several exceptions which were tbe subject of earnest debate before us, and while they are not altogether free from difficulty, a careful perusal of tbe entire record leaves us witb tbe impression tbat no sufficient evidence, competent to fix tbe defend*815ants with, liability, was offered on tbe bearing of tbe cause. In tbis view of tbe case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss tbe assignments of error.

Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2074

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5456]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner
[Docket No. N-95-3865; FR-3852-N-02]


Service Coordinator Funds for Fiscal Year 1995; Correction to 
Identification of NY State Director

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice; Technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 13, 1995, HUD published a notice that announced 
the issuance of Housing Notice H-94-99, entitled ``Processing of 
Requests for Section 8 Funds for Service Coordinators in Section 8 
(including Section 515/8 under the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service (RHCDS),\1\) and Sections 202, 202/8, 221(d)(3) and 
236 Projects and Monitoring of Approved Requests--FY 1995''. Housing 
Notice H-94-99 describes the procedures for applying for service 
coordinator funds in FY 1995 and the State or area office's processing 
of applications and awards for those funds.

    \1\Previously entitled the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The February 13, 1995 notice included a list of Multifamily 
Division Directors. The purpose of this notice is to correct the name 
of the director listed for the New York State Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 13, 1995 (60 FR 8380), HUD 
published a notice that announced the issuance of Housing Notice H-94-
99, entitled ``Processing of Requests for Section 8 Funds for Service 
Coordinators in Section 8 (including Section 515/8 under the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service (RHCDS)), and Sections 202, 
202/8, 221(d)(3) and 236 Projects and Monitoring of Approved Requests--
FY 1995''. Housing Notice H-94-99 describes the procedures for applying 
for service coordinator funds in FY 1995 and the State or area office's 
processing of applications and awards for those funds.
    The February 13, 1995 notice included a list of Multifamily 
Division Directors. The purpose of this notice is to correct the name 
of the director listed for the New York State Office.
    Accordingly, in FR Doc. 95-3473, published February 13, 1995 (60 FR 
8280), on page 8280, in column three, the name of the Multifamily 
Division Director for New York/New Jersey is corrected to read as 
follows:

New York/New Jersey

New York
Beryl Niewood, Acting Multifamily Director, HUD-New York Office, 26 
Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278-0068, (212) 264-2960.

    Dated: February 28, 1995.
Camille Acevedo,
Assistant General Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 95-5456 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-M
EXHIBIT 32.1






CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO






SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)






In connection with Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John R. Plachetka, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; 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:           May 5, 2011/s/  John R. PlachetkaJohn R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.Chief Executive 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### W. F. COLLINS v. J. W. EMERSON, JR., Sheriff of CHATHAM COUNTY, and All Other Law Enforcement Officers of CHATHAM COUNTY.

(Filed 8 October, 1952.)

Elections § 18a—

Tbe result of an election held by a board having jurisdiction and legislative authority to act, is binding until set aside in a direct proceeding, and the validity of the election may not be collaterally attacked by suit to restrain its effects.

*298Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at Chambers in Pittsboro, 12 May, 1952, from Chatham.

This is an action to restrain the Sheriff of Chatham County and all other law enforcement officers of said county from enforcing the law against the sale of beer on the ground that the election held in Chatham County, 8 March, 1952, at which time 3,150 qualified voters voted against the legal sale of beer and 1,633 qualified voters voted in favor of such sale, was illegal and void by reason of certain irregularities in calling and conducting the election.

The court below heard the evidence and found as a fact, among other things, that the election was duly and properly called and held by the proper officials in full compliance with the provisions of the law, and that two of the three members of the County Board of Elections met at the courthouse in Pittsboro on 11 March, 1952, and canvassed the votes cast in said special election and certified the result thereof to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Chatham County. The motion for a permanent injunction against the defendant and all other law enforcement officers of Chatham County, was denied. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Oitway Burton for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Bell <& Horton, Barber & Thompson, Dixon <& Darle, T. Fleet Baldwin, and J. Lee Moody for defendants, appellees.*

DeNNY, J.

There is no exception to the findings of fact. The appellant contends, however, that from the facts found the court should have held, as a matter of law, that the election was invalid and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. The contention is without merit.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when the Legislature has committed to a board the duty of submitting a proposition to the voters, in an area in which such board has jurisdiction, when such duty has been discharged and the result declared, such declaration is binding on everyone, so long as it stands unreversed by a proper judgment or decree in a direct proceeding brought for that purpose. In the meantime, the validity of the election may not be collaterally attacked. *Smallwood v. New Bern,*90 N.C. 36; *McDowell v. Construction Co.,*96 N.C. 514, 2 S.E. 351; *S. v. Emery,*98 N.C. 768, 3 S.E. 810; *Rigsbee v. Durham,*98 N.C. 81, 3 S.E. 749; *Bynum v. Commissioners,*101 N.C. 412, 8 S.E. 136; *S. v. Cooper,*101 N.C. 684, 8 S.E. 134; *Young v. Hendersonville,*129 N.C. 422, 40 S.E. 89; *Gill v. Commissioners,*160 N.C. 176, 76 S.E. 203, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293; *Forester v. North Wilkesboro,*206 N.C. 347, 174 S.E. 112; *Barbee v. Commissioners,*210 N.C. 717, 188 S.E. 314.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
7585 Empire Drive | Florence, KY 41042 | (800) 354-0560 | www.prestolite.com

4000 Series Alternator Re-Des

FL-1094 7/08

For information about our 4000 series alternators

Call today! 800-354-0560

Our high amperage alternators have been re-designed for 

tomorrow’s applications!

The leader in high temperature designs!

These design improvements have solidified our manufacturing processes and 

enhanced the reliability of the entire line currently rated for applications up to 

110oC. 

We can take the heat!

The 2007 heavy duty diesel engines are running hotter than ever before. We 

know that the 2010 EPA requirements are going to drive those under-hood 

temperatures even higher. We are going to be ready!

Proven technology!

The solid lead frame design, using high temperature avalanche diodes with 

welded connections is proven technology, and has been incorporated into all 

existing models. 

New

185 Amp

T

320 Amp

Internal rectifier

External rectifier

110°C
Exhibit 10.26






Exhibit 10.26



ICG COMPENSATION CLAWBACK POLICY




In addition to any other remedies available to ICG Group, Inc. (together with its
subsidiaries, “ICG”), if the Board of Directors of ICG Group, Inc. (the “Board”) (or, at the
discretion of the Board, a duly authorized committee of the Board) determines in its sole
discretion that it is appropriate, ICG may recover (in whole or in part) any performance-based
bonus or other incentive-based compensation paid to any officer of ICG after the date hereof to the
extent that such bonus or compensation is based upon any financial results that were impacted by
such officer’s fraud or intentional misconduct.



Adopted: April 16, 2010



Amended: June 20, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6109]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5170-8]


Acid Rain Program: Notice of Final New Unit Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final new unit exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing five-year 
new unit exemptions in accordance with the Acid Rain Program 
regulations (40 CFR part 72) to the following 9 utility units at 4 
plants in Minnesota: Alliant Techsystems unit 1; Blue Earth Water and 
Light Department units 7, 8, and 9; United Health Care units 1 and 2; 
and United Hospital units 5, 6, and 7.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Batka at (312) 353-7316, EPA 
Region 5, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Bldg., 77 West Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, IL 60604.

    Dated: February 24, 1995.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Acid Rain Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of 
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-6109 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3154

Viavi Solutions Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1621

EQI, Ltd: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### In the Matter of MRS. E. R. GROVES.

(Filed 11 June, 1952.)

Appeal by the respondent, the Board of Adjustment of Chapel Hill, from *Williams, J.,*at the October Term, 1951, of OeaNge.

Proceeding in the nature of *certiorari*to review refusal of permit to repair a building in a residential zone in Chapel Hill.

The applicant, Mrs. E. R. Groves, applied to the building inspector for a permit to repair a building in a residential zone in Chapel Hill. The permit was refused by him as not authorized by the zoning ordinance of the municipality, and the applicant appealed to the Board of Adjustment of Chapel Hill, which affirmed the decision of the building inspector. The Superior Court reviewed the decision of the Board of Adjustment 'by this proceeding in the nature of *certiorari,*and rendered a judgment reversing that decision and ordering the issuance of the permit sought by the applicant. The Board of Adjustment thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning the conclusions of law and the judgment of the Superior Court as error.

*Emery B. Denny, Jr., and John T. Manning for the applicant, appellee.*

*J. Q. I/eGrand for the respondent, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam:.

The appellant has failed to show that the Superior Court committed error in reviewing the decision of the Board of Adjust*757ment. *Nichols v. Trust Co.,*231 N.C. 158, 56 S.E. 2d 429. Hence, the judgment is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         596,377
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               689,343
<PP&E>                                         270,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 49,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,144
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,799,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,387,728
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,346
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               364,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,472,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,472,283)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,472,283)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)






</TABLE>
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

11193

Vol. 60, No. 40

Wednesday, March 1, 1995

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL

RESERVE SYSTEM

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Monday,

March 6, 1995.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, C Street

entrance between 20th and 21st Streets,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments, reassignments, and

salary actions) involving individual Federal

Reserve System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the

Board; (202) 452–3204. You may call

(202) 452–3207, beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before this meeting, for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting.

Dated: February 24, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–5078 Filed 2–27–95; 9:59 am]

BILLING CODE 5210–01–P