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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5898 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5898

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited number of 
  cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental 
           Ballistic Missile program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2023

                Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

              Referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited number of 
  cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental 
           Ballistic Missile program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Sentinel Program Construction Risk 
Mitigation Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FORM OF CONTRACTING AUTHORIZED TO MITIGATE RISK TO SENTINEL 
              PROGRAM SCHEDULE AND COST.

    Notwithstanding section 3323 of title 10, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Defense, for a military construction project associated 
with the Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program launch 
facilities, control centers, and related infrastructure, may use a 
cost-plus incentive-fee form of contracting for not more than the first 
two low-rate initial production lots for such a project.
                                 <all>
```
#### Glenn VALENTINE, Movant-Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 56109.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 26, 1989.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-appellant.

Raymond A. Bruntrager, St. Louis, for movant-respondent.

ORDER

The state appeals from a judgment granting movant’s Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Fit For Business International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Sandra Wendt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
          2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ending March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Fit For
          Business International, Inc.

Dated:  May 21, 2007

/s/ Sandra Wendt
----------------
Sandra Wendt
Chief Financial Officer
#### John HIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48741.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 26, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Lyn Clark, Respondent, v David Somers et al., Defendants, and Nina Somers, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with defendant Nina Somers’ contention that Supreme Court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s defamation causes of action. She contends that her alleged defamatory statement was protected by a qualified privilege. We agree. " ' "A communication made *bona fide*upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an *interest,*or in reference to which he has a *duty,*is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding *interest*or *duty,*although it contained criminating matter which, without this privilege, would be slanderous and actionable” ’ ” *(Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan,*7 NY2d 56, 60-61 [emphasis in original]; *see also, Toker v Poliak,*44 NY2d 211, 219). Here, the alleged defamatory statements were made by defendant, a contract *983computer consultant for the MIS subdivision of Xerox, to other Xerox employees, all of whom were concerned with the hiring of contract employees for Xerox. Since defendant had an interest and duty to speak regarding the subject matter of her communication, and since the comments were made to individuals who had a corresponding interest and duty, those statements were qualifiedly privileged *(see, Murphy v Herfort,*140 AD2d 415, 416, *Iv denied*73 NY2d 701, *rearg denied*73 NY2d 872; *McGovern v Hayes,*135 AD2d 125, 127-128, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 803; *Vacca v General Elec. Credit Corp.,*88 AD2d 740; *Baldwin v Shell Oil Co.,*71 AD2d 907; *De Sapio v Kohlmeyer,*52 AD2d 780). Once defendant had established that her statements were cloaked with a qualified privilege, in order to defeat her summary judgment motion plaintiff was required to submit evidentiary facts to establish that the comments were made with actual malice *(see, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt,*59 NY2d 205, 210-211; *Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan, supra,*at 64), i.e., that defendant’s statements were actuated by personal spite, ill will, culpable recklessness or negligence *(Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan, supra).*Conjecture, surmise or suspicion are insufficient to meet that burden *(see, Murphy v Herfort, supra; McGovern v Hayes, supra).*Since plaintiff has failed to provide such evidentiary facts, defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be granted *(see, Murphy v Herfort, supra; McGovern v Hayes, supra; Harris v Alcan Aluminum Corp.,*91 AD2d 830, *affd*58 NY2d 1036).

Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for interference with prospective contractual relations. It appears that plaintiff was granted leave to amend that cause of action and defendant has failed to appeal from that portion of Supreme Court’s order; therefore, that issue is not before us. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11548]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 050396B]


Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pacific cod in the Central 
Regulatory Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific cod in the Central 
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). NMFS is requiring that 
catches of Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area be treated in the 
same manner as prohibited species and discarded at sea with a minimum 
of injury. This action is necessary because the total allowable catch 
(TAC) of Pacific cod in this area has been reached.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 5, 1996, until 
12 midnight A.l.t., December 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is 
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 
672.
    In accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(1)(ii)(B), the TAC for Pacific 
cod in the Central Regulatory Area was established by the Final 1996 
Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4304, February 5, 1996) as 
42,900 metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with Sec. 672.20(c)(3), that the TAC for Pacific cod in the Central 
Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is 
requiring that further catches of Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory 
Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with 
Sec. 672.20(e).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 3, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11548 Filed 5-3-96; 4:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
<PAGE>
                                                          EXHIBIT 10(o)
                                                          Form 10-K for 1995
                                                          File No. 1-11237


                         AT&T CAPITAL CORPORATION


          AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO 1993 SHARE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

        Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Compensation Committee and
Executive Committee of AT&T Capital Corporation's Board of Directors (dated
November 7, 1995 and November 14, 1995, respectively), the AT&T Capital
Corporation 1993 Share Performance Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended
and supplemented effective November 14, 1995 as set forth below:

        1.     Section 2 of the Plan is amended and supplemented by adding the 
following new paragraph (ap) at the end thereof:

                  (ap) "Private Sale" means any Change in Control that results
in, or will have the result of, the Common Stock no longer being publicly traded
on a national securities exchange or traded on the NASDAQ over-the-counter
market.

        2.     Section 5 of the Plan is amended and supplemented by adding the
following Section 5.3 at the end thereof:

        5.3 Private Sale. (a) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 5.1 or 5.2 to
the contrary, upon the occurrence of a Private Sale during the term of the Plan,
the Company shall promptly pay to each Participant (i) 100% of such
Participant's Maximum Payout (without discount) for each pending Performance
Period under the Plan and (ii) with respect to any Performance Period completed
within twelve (12) months prior to such Private Sale, the excess of (A) 100% of
the Maximum Payout for such Participant for such Performance Period over (B) the
payment actually made to the Participant for such Performance Period.

          (b) Subject to Section 5.2 hereof, following any Award Payout for
pending and completed Performance Periods under this Section 5.3, Award Payouts
with respect to any Performance Periods beginning after the occurrence of a
Private Sale will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 4
hereof without modification.


<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of East 55th Street Joint Venture, Petitioner, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Respondents.

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kenneth Shorter, J.), entered May 31, 1989, the determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) dated December 28, 1988, which denied petitioner’s petition for administrative review of DHCR’s July 15, 1986 order fixing rent for the subject apartment, unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, without costs.

In this rent overcharge proceeding, DHCR recalculated the rent for the subject apartment using an alternative method because the landlord did not file a complete rental history. The rental history provided belatedly by the landlord consisted, in part, of affidavits obtained from former tenants for the specific purpose of this litigation and a purported "worksheet” of questionable origin. DHCR properly exercised its discretion in finding these documents to be without probative value *(see, Matter of Kraus Mgt. v State of N. Y., Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*137 AD2d 689, 690-691). Accordingly, DHCR’s determination had a rational basis, for which this court will not substitute its own view *(see, Matter of Bambeck v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*129 AD2d 51, 54, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 615).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
#### Ronald P. STASNY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0481-94.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 22, 1995.

Discretionaiy Review Refused Nov. 22, 1995.

C. Gerard Miller, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Jim W. James, Special Prosecutor, Bryan, Robert A. Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

BAIRD, Judge,

dissenting to refusal of appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

Appellant filed his petition for discretionary review on May 9, 1994. Today, eighteen months later, a majority of this Court opts to refuse the petition. In doing so, the majority does not address appellant’s question for review which asks: Is a complaint so fundamentally defective as to be null and void if it does not begin with “in the name and by authority of The State of Texas” and conclude with “against the peace and dignity of the State” as required by Tex.Code Crim. Proe.Ann. art. 1.23?

In the instant ease, even though appellant did not challenge the validity of the complaint prior to trial, the Court of Appeals held the prosecution was null and void because the complaint did not comply with art. 1.23. *Ex parte Stasny,*No. 13-93-019-CR, delivered February 28, 1994 (not published). The Court of Appeals relied upon *Ex parte Jackson,*50 Tex.Crim. 324, 96 S.W. 924, 925 (App.1906), to reach this result. While recognizing the 1985 amendment to art. V, *499§ 12 of the Texas Constitution, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held a complaint that did not comply with art. 1.23 was so defective as to not vest the justice court with jurisdiction.

In *Studer v. State,*799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), we held the 1985 constitutional amendment applied to all charging instruments. On the strength of *Studer,*we held that post-1985 defects in complaints must be raised before trial pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 27.03 because such defects were no longer jurisdictional.' *Aguilar v. State,*846 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals in the instant case is in direct conflict with *Aguilar*and review should be granted. Tex.R.App.P. 200(c)(3).

However, that is not the only conflict. In *Huynh v. State,*901 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), we stated that our language in *Studer,*implying that the constitutional amendment related to all charging instruments, was “over-broad,” and held the 1985 amendment to art. V, § 12 was limited to defects in indictments and informations. *Ibid.*Consequently, *Huynh*permits defendants to contest the validity of a complaint for the first time on appeal.

Not only does the Court of Appeals’ opinion conflict with *Aguilar,*we have a conflict in our own interpretation of art. V, § 12 as to whether it applies to complaints; in *Aguilar,*it does, in *Huynh,*it does not. Because the majority does not take this opportunity to resolve this obvious conflict in our jurisprudence, I dissent to the refusal of appellant’s petition for discretionary review.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |        |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: 01/30/09 |  |        |  | /S/    JAMES D.
BOWDEN               
|               |  | Name:  |  | James D. Bowden                      
|               |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|               |  |       
|Date: 01/30/09 |  |        |  | /S/    STEVE L.
SUSS                 
|               |  | Name:  |  | Steve L. Suss                        
|               |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.



46
Form of LP Interest Agreement without put option feature




 Exhibit 10.16 

[Form of LP Interest Agreement without Put Feature] 

LP INTEREST AGREEMENT OF AQUILEX HOLDCO L.P. 

This LP Interest Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this     th day
of             , 20            (the “Grant Date”), by and between Aquilex Holdco L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and             (“Employee”) pursuant to the Agreement of Limited Partnership executed on
December 15, 2008 by Aquilex Holdco GP LLC, Employee, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board and the other signatories thereto (the “LP Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined in this Agreement have the meanings
ascribed to them in the LP Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to this Agreement Employee is a Management Limited Partner of the
Partnership; 
 WHEREAS, Employee has contributed Rollover Units to the Partnership in exchange for Common Interests in the
Partnership; and 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of Employee’s future services to Aquilex Acquistion Sub III, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership (“Aquilex”) or a Subsidiary of Aquilex, Partnership wishes to grant Employee certain Profits Interests in Partnership. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to carry out their intent as expressed above and in consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter
contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 

1. Grant of LP Interests. Employee is hereby granted Common Interests and Profits Interests in the Partnership as set forth
below. 
  

																			
	 Limited Partner
	  	Capital
Contribution

in respect of
Common
Interests	  	Common
Interests	 	 	Time
Vested

Profits
Interests	 	 	Performance
Vested
Profits

Interests	 	 	Capital
Contribution
in respect
of
Profits
Interests	  	Hurdle
Amount
in
respect
of
each
Profits
Interests
	 [Employee]
	  	$	            	  	[            	] 	 	[            	] 	 	[            	] 	 	$	            	  	$	            


2. LP Agreement. This Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into, and deemed part of, the LP Agreement and all of
the terms and conditions of the LP Agreement shall apply to this Agreement. 
 [Signatures on following page] 









							
	AQUILEX HOLDCO L.P.
			
		 	By:	 	AQUILEX HOLDCO GP LLC
		 		 	as its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board
		 		 		 	as Sole Member
	By:	 	  

		 	Name:	 	
		 	Title:	 	
	
	[Employee]
	  

	 Name:
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 30342, June 7, 2021.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: June 10, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-12509 Filed 6-10-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5387

SGRE, 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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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