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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5529 

To require a study of the risk of space debris impacting a metropolitan 

area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

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

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To require a study of the risk of space debris impacting 

a metropolitan area, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY OF RISK OF SPACE DEBRIS IMPACTING 

4 A METROPOLITAN AREA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Com7 merce, in consultation with the Administrator of the Fed8 eral Emergency Management Agency, the Administrator 

9 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

10 and the Secretary of Defense, shall carry out a study to 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5529 IH

1 examine the risk of space debris impacting a metropolitan 

2 area within the next 25 years. 

3 (b) CONTENTS.—The study required under sub4 section (a) shall address the following: 

5 (1) In the next 25 years, the probability of a 

6 space-based, manmade object impacting a populated 

7 area exceeding 1 million inhabitants. 

8 (2) The ability to predict such an incident. 

9 (3) The ability to warn the affected area, in10 cluding regarding the amount of time needed to do 

11 so. 

12 (4) Would an evacuation process be possible, 

13 and if so, how such would be carried out. 

14 (5) How could relief via a Federal response be 

15 provided, and an identification of which agencies 

16 would be tasked with so responding. 

17 (6) Options to defend against an imminent im18 pact. 

19 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 28 

20 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

21 Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Committee on 

22 Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on Home23 land Security, the Committee on Armed Services, and the 

24 Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 

25 Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5529 IH

1 Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Homeland 

2 Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on 

3 Armed Services of the Senate a report containing the re4 sults of the study required under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 03-21-00338-CR

Kenneth Gregory Knight, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

denied

NO. 14-0183

ST. LUKE'S SUGAR LAND

PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P. AND ST.

LUKE'S COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONSUGAR LAND

v.

SHATISH PATEL, M.D.,

HEMALATHA VIJAYAN, M.D.,

SUBODH SONWALKAR, M.D. AND

WALLEY OLADUT, M.D. §

§

§

§

§

§ Harris County,

1st District.

October 24, 2014

Petitioner s' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

January 9, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, ST. LUKE'S SUGAR LAND PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P.

AND ST. LUKE'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-SUGAR LAND, pay all

costs incurred on this petition.WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 22nd day of January, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 31.1

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Edward M. Krell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Destination Maternity Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                   |  |                                    
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|Date: May 26, 2011 |  | /s/ Edward M. Krell                
|                   |  | Edward M. Krell                    
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer & President
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11364]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Initial Review Group (IRG) meeting:

    Name of IRG: Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review 
Committee.
    Date: June 20, 1996.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, Maryland 20815.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jeffrey H. Hurst, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 
7208, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 435-0303.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate program project grant 
applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.837, 
Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases 
Research; and 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: May 1, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-11364 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Penny L. NEVILLS, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69587.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Blake R. Fischer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Franklin County, Union, for appellant.

Daniel E. Leslie, Union, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri appeals the dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge against defendant Penny L. Nevills. The trial court found the prosecution of the charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant previously had his license administratively suspended.

This case is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996). There, the court held a charge of driving while intoxicated is not barred by Double Jeopardy because the defendant’s license had been administratively suspended. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the charge against the defendant.

*148The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11115]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


 Submission For OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of the Census.
    Title: Questionnaire Pretesting Research.
    Form Number(s): Various.
    Agency Approval Number: 0607-0725.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 12,000 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 12,000.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 1 hour.
    Needs and Uses: In 1991, the Census Bureau obtained a generic 
clearance on an experimental basis, which relaxed some of the time 
constraints and enabled the Census Bureau to begin conducting extended 
cognitive and questionnaire design research as part of testing for its 
censuses and surveys. The clearance covered data collections in the 
demographic, economic, and decennial areas of the Census Bureau, and 
specifically applied to research that is focused on questionnaire 
design and procedures aimed at reducing measurement errors in surveys. 
Types of research include field testing, respondent debriefings, split 
sample experiments, cognitive interviews, and focus groups.The 
clearance has been in place since that time and the Census Bureau is 
now seeking a revision of the clearance. We are requesting an increase 
of 7,500 burden hours annually to conduct quick tests in the decennial 
area to test new ideas and refine or improve upon positive or unclear 
results from other tests.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, Businesses or other 
for-profit, Farms.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202) 395-7314.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Acting DOC Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, room 5312, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Linda Engelmeier,
Acting Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 96-11115 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-F
Amendment No. 1 to the 1993 Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit #10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CAMDEN NATIONAL CORPORATION 
 1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 1. Purpose. At the 1993 annual meeting of shareholders of Camden National Corporation, the shareholders approved the Camden National Corporation
1993 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”). Under the terms of the Plan, Three Thousand (3,000) shares of the Corporation’s common stock, no par value, were available to be issued pursuant to Options granted under the Plan. The number
of shares was increased in 1993 to Ninety Thousand (90,000) shares to reflect a 30-for 1 stock split. At the annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation, the shareholders approved an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares
available to be issued pursuant to Options granted under the Plan from Ninety Thousand (90,000) shares to One Hundred and Forty Thousand (140,000) shares. The purpose of this Amendment is to modify the terms of the Plan to reflect the
increase in the number of said shares. 
 2. Definitions. The terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as when used
Plan unless the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended: 
 3. Amended Provision. Section 5 of the Plan is
hereby amended to read as follows: 
 “Shares Available. Subject to the provisions of Section 7, One Hundred and Forty Thousand
(140,000) Shares may be issued pursuant to Options granted under the Plan. In the event that an Option expires or terminates for any reason without having been exercised in full, the Shares subject to but not issued under such Option shall,
unless the Plan shall have been terminated, become available for other Options.” 
 4. Effective Date of Amendment. This
Amendment shall be effective May 7, 1996.
#### Patricia A. Rapp, Appellant, v Karen L. Suriano, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered September 15, 1989 in Schenectady County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On August 6, 1986, an automobile owned and operated by defendant collided with a vehicle being operated by plaintiff at the intersection of Broadway and Melrose Street in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County. As a result of injuries sustained in the collision, plaintiff was taken to the hospital where she was treated for a concussion, a laceration to her lip, pain in her lower back and swelling to her left shoulder.

Plaintiff commenced this action on October 5, 1987 alleging that she had sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident. On May 15, 1989, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to provide any proof other than conclusory statements contained in her doctor’s affidavit that plaintiff’s injuries were permanent in nature or otherwise satisfied the definition of serious injury. We reverse.

To obtain summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law, a defendant has the burden of establishing by proof in admissible form a defense that would warrant the court as a matter of law to direct a judgment in the defendant’s favor *(La Frenire v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth.,*96 AD2d 664, 665). Here, defendant submitted in support of her motion for summary judgment, *inter alia,*an *838attorney’s affidavit and an unsworn medical report.* Defendant’s attorney is not qualified to render medical opinions and the medical report is unsworn hearsay *(see, Armstrong v Wolfe,*133 AD2d 957, 958). Thus, it is clear that defendant failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form to substantiate her allegations. In the absence of sufficient proof, defendant’s motion should have been denied.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

*

 Defendant has submitted a sworn medical report in a supplemental record on appeal. At oral argument, plaintiff indicated that this sworn report was not before Supreme Court. Since the order appealed from, apparently prepared by defendant, fails to recite that this sworn report was presented in support of defendant’s motion, we shall not consider it.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
March 17, 2003 except for Note 17, as to which the date is March 31, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Q Comm International, Inc.
and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2002, and for the periods then ended,
appearing in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2002, in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8, SEC
File No. 333-38362, 333-57502 and 333-43450.


/s/ PRITCHETT, SILER & HARDY, P.C.

Salt Lake City, Utah
May 20, 2003
```

Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Form 10-KSB Annual Report of Liska Biometry, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2001, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

May 27, 2003

/s/ Lam Ko Chau

By: Lam Ko Chau, President (Principal Executive Officer), Principal Financial
Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Chairman of the Board
```
Form of Amendment/Severance Agreement - executive officers




 Exhibit 10.29 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO 

[EMPLOYMENT/SEVERANCE] AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. [ ] (this “Amendment”), dated as of December
[            ], 2008, is made by and between Goodman Global, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and [ ] (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an [employment/severance] agreement dated as of [ ] (the
“[Employment/Severance] Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the
[Employment/Severance] Agreement in order to clarify their mutual understanding of the application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to the [Employment/Severance] Agreement; 

WHEREAS, Section[ ] of the [Employment/Severance] Agreement permits amendments in writing which are signed by the Company and
Executive; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein contained, the Company and
Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment to Section [ ]. The [Employment/Severance] Agreement
shall hereby be amended by adding the following two sentences to the end of Section [ ]: 
 “For purposes of
Section 409A of the Code, each payment made under this Agreement shall be designated as a “separate payment” within the meaning of the Section 409A of the Code. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, except to the
extent any expense, reimbursement or in-kind benefit provided pursuant to this Agreement does not constitute a “deferral of compensation” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code: (x) the amount of expenses eligible for
reimbursement or in-kind benefits provided to Executive during any calendar year will not affect the amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement or in-kind benefits provided to Executive in any other calendar year, (y) the reimbursements for
expenses for which Executive is entitled to be reimbursed shall be made on or before the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the applicable expense is incurred, and (z) the right to payment or reimbursement or
in-kind benefits hereunder may not be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit.” 
 2.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 

3. Ratification. All other provisions of the [Employment/Severance] Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby
ratified by the Company and Executive. 
 [Signatures on next page.] 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer and Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first set forth above. 
  

			
	Goodman Global, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		 	Title:
	
	Executive
		
	By:	 	 


  

 2
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Dirkson R. Charles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of K&F Industries Holdings, Inc.; 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 disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing 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 fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that 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 mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                 Date:March 16, 2006 /s/ DIRKSON R. CHARLES         Dirkson R. Charles    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 06-4004/07-1177

___________

Dim Njaka, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, *

United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 2008

Filed: June 13, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Dim Njaka appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal

of his employment-discrimination action and the court’s denial of his motion for

reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ arguments and the

submissions on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motions are denied.