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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 826 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a postage stamp 

should be issued in commemoration of Diwali, a festival celebrated by 

people of Indian origin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 13, 2009 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. MCDERMOTT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a postage stamp should be issued in commemoration 

of Diwali, a festival celebrated by people of Indian origin. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued by the 

4 United States Postal Service in commemoration of 

5 Diwali, a festival celebrated by people of Indian ori6 gin; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 826 IH 

1 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

2 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

3 such a stamp be issued. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
secondamendgasdirectdefcomp.htm


    
      Nicor
Inc.

      Form
10-K

      Exhibit
10.58


      


      SECOND
AMENDMENT

      TO

      NORTHERN
ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY

      DIRECTORS’
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

       

      WHEREAS,
Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas Company (the “Company”) previously
established the Northern Illinois Gas Company Directors’ Deferred Compensation
Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);
and

       

      WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for a one time election to
receive in-service distributions.

       

      NOW
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new Section
11:

       

      “SECTION
11. One Time Withdrawal Election. Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Plan to the contrary, a Director may prior to December 31, 2008 file pursuant to
the election permitted under Section 2 for 2008, a one-time election to have all
or any portion of the balance of his deferred compensation account as of
December 31, 2008 (plus interest and dividend equivalents thereon) distributed
and paid out to him in a lump sum on May 1, 2009 (the “Payment Date”). Such
election shall include whether such distribution will be from amounts credited
with the interest equivalent option or the share unit option. If such an
election is made and the Director’s deferred compensation account is credited
with the interest equivalent under Section 3.3, then such Directors’ deferred
compensation account shall be credited with interest through the date
immediately prior to the Payment Date. If the Directors’ deferred compensation
account is denominated in share units, then such share units shall be converted
to the cash equivalent based on the closing market composite price for the
Company’s common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite
Transactions on the last trading day prior to the Payment Date. Any election
under this Section 11 shall not apply to any amounts credited to a Director’s
deferred compensation account for retainers or meeting fees for service in 2009.
An election to receive a partial distribution of a Director’s deferred
compensation account under this Section 11, shall not impact a Director’s
election as to the manner and date of payment of the remaining portion of the
Director’s deferred compensation account. A Director who receives full payment
of his deferred compensation account pursuant to an election under this Section
11 and who subsequently elects to defer compensation under this Plan, shall in
such subsequent deferral election under Section 2, specify the manner and date
on which the Director elects to receive payment of the amount to be so deferred
under Subsection 3.1.”

      


      FURTHER,
this Second Amendment to the Plan shall be effective on the date approved by the
Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company.

       

      In all
other respects the Plan, as amended by the First and Second Amendments thereto
shall remain in full force and effect.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

444444444444 N O . 08-0890

444444444444 

### T HE 

### H OUSTON 

### E XPLORATION 

### C O 

### . AND 

### O FFSHORE 

### S PECIALTY 

### F ABRICATORS 

### , I NC 

### ., P ETITIONERS 

### , v. 

### W ELLINGTON 

### U NDERWRITING 

### A GENCIES 

### , L TD 

### . ET AL 

### ., R ESPONDENTS

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 O N P ETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F OURTEENTH D ISTRICT OF T EXAS
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 J USTICE J OHNSON , concurring. I join parts I and III of the C ourt’s opinion and its judgment. I write to explain my view of why the stricken language of paragraph 13 can and should be considered for context. First, the stricken language of paragraph 13 need not be considered in determining the policy’s coverage. As explained in part III of the Court’s opinion and by th e court of appeals, 267 S.W.3d 277, 283-87, the policy is unambiguous regardle ss of the presence of the stricken language. The policy provides coverage for repairs and vessels engaged in “or about” repairs; it does not provide coverage for vessels on standby for an ex tended period of time and not actively preparing for, supporting, or engaged in repairs. Next, this was not a one-size-fits-all insurance agreement. The insurance contract was negotiated based on Offshore’s particular risks. The striking of paragraph 13 and other languagefrom the form policy is an objective reflection of the setting surrounding th e creation of the policy; it assists in giving context to how the policy terms were reached through negotiations. See
___ S.W.3d ___ at ___ (Jefferson, C.J., dissenting) (citing 11 R ICHARD A. L ORD , W ILLISTON ON C ONTRACTS § 32.7 (4th ed. 1999)). The strikings show th at the parties negotiating the contract were experienced with the type of coverage being negotiated and that “standby charges” was a term of art reflecting a particular, recognized category of risk. Moreover, the presence of the clause providing a deductible for standby charges does not indicate that the policy covers standby charges as the dissent posits. To the contrary, it indicates the opposite: standby charges were a separate, recognized category of expense. The insuring porti ons of the policy did not provide coverage for such charges even though the deductible clause was not stricken.

________________________________________ Phil Johnson Justice OPINION DELIVERED: August 26, 2011

2
#### Norbert FOELLER, Employee/Respondent, v. MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL INC., Employer/Appellant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Insurer/Appellant, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as custodian of the Second Injury Fund.

No. 66635.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 21, 1995.

John F. Sander, St. Louis, for appellants.

Evan J. Beatty, St. Louis, for respondent.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maria W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Mallinckrodt Chemical Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s award of permanent partial disability. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. As we further find an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value, we affirm the Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 923 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 923

 Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives 
   all documents in the possession of the President relating to the 
effects on foreign intelligence collection of the transfer of detainees 
  held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2009

Mr. Hoekstra submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives 
   all documents in the possession of the President relating to the 
effects on foreign intelligence collection of the transfer of detainees 
  held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States.

    Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House 
of Representatives not later than 14 days after the adoption of this 
resolution all documents (including records, memos, correspondence, or 
other communications) in the possession of the President that refer or 
relate to the effects on foreign intelligence collection of the 
transfer of detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into 
the United States.
                                 <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Keith Bernard Walker

, * From the 106th District Court

of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 11

- 4144.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00216

- CR * December 31, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

DAVID LEE KILGUS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 118 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 

642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (hybrid representation not permitted). The Prothonotary is 

DIRECTED to forward this filing to counsel of record.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS(expedited) 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1418 Filed 12/01/21 Page 1 of 1
exv4w2






Exhibit 4.2




Confidential Stockholder Voting Policy of Chevron Corporation



Chevron has a confidential voting policy to protect stockholders’ voting privacy. Under this
policy, ballots, proxy forms and voting instructions returned to brokerage firms, banks and other
holders of record are kept confidential. Only the proxy solicitor, proxy tabulator and the
Inspector of Election have access to the ballots, proxy forms and voting instructions. Anyone who
processes or inspects ballots, proxy forms or voting instructions signs a pledge to treat them as
confidential. None of these persons is a Chevron employee. The proxy solicitor and the proxy
tabulator will disclose information taken from the ballots, proxy forms and voting instructions
only in the event of a proxy contest or as otherwise required by law.





E-3
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ceasar Inzunza, et al, 

Defendant. 

NO. 17-02021MJ 

MATERIAL WITNESS ORDER OF 

DETENTION 

 Defendant, Ceasar Inzunza, et al, having been charged in the District of Arizona 

with a violation of Count One of Title 8 United States Code Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), 

(B)(i) and the Magistrate Judge having determined from the affidavit of the Department 

of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection filed in this case, the following 

persons can provide testimony that is material to the offense alleged in the complaint: 

Yolanda Cruz-Gutierrez 

Gerardo Escobar-Cabrera 

Salvador Lopez-Rivas 

 The Magistrate Judge finds that it may become impracticable to secure the 

presence of the witnesses by subpoena in further proceedings because they are not in the 

United States legally and have no legal residence or employment in this Country. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the witnesses shall be detained pursuant to 18 USC ' 3144 

in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or 

serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The witnesses shall be 
- 2 - 

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 

afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. 

 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2017.
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 5, PageID.11 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

John Brunst,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-004-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Defendant was sentenced to 120 months in the Bureau of Prisons on August 28, 

2024 and ordered to self-surrender to the custody of the United States Marshal on 

September 11, 2024. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED modifying the defendant’s conditions of pretrial release as 

follows:

1. The defendant shall participate in the following location monitoring program 

component(s) and shall abide by all program requirements. The defendant shall 

pay all or part of the cost of the participation in the location monitoring program 

as directed by the court or Pretrial Services.

☒ (Home Detention) The defendant is restricted to his residence at all times

except for; employment, education, religious services, medical, substance abuse 

or mental health treatment, attorney visits, court appearances, court-ordered 

obligations, or other activities as pre-approved by Pretrial Services.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2191 Filed 09/03/24 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

2. The defendant shall submit to the location monitoring technology at the officer’s 

discretion and shall abide by all of the technological requirements and 

instructions provided by Pretrial Services. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all other conditions of pretrial release.

Dated this 28th day of August, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2191 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 2
ex10qq_ii.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10-qq(ii)

    


    


    


    AT&T
INC.

    HUMAN
RESOURCES COMMITTEE

    June
26, 2008

    


    Second
Amendment to BellSouth Corporation

    Stock and
Incentive Compensation Plan

    


    


    RESOLVED,
that the Human Resources Committee of AT&T Inc. ("Corporation") hereby
authorizes and directs the Senior Executive Vice President-Human Resources to
provide that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the plan, payments of
Restricted Stock Units under the BellSouth Corporation Stock and Incentive
Compensation Plan must be delayed six months from when they would otherwise be
payable when such amounts are to be paid to a Specified Employee, as that term
is used in Treasury Regulation §1.409A; and

    


    RESOLVED FURTHER, that the appropriate
officers of the Corporation are authorized to do or cause to be done any and all
such acts and things, and to execute and deliver any and all documents and
papers that they may deem necessary, proper or advisable to carry out the
foregoing resolutions.
#### Ernestine & Charles POINER, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. SHIRLEY LIQUOR STORES, INC., Charles M. Hinkle, R.A., & Charles M. Hinkle, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 61987.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 23, 1993.

Michael R. Gibbons, Christian Stiegemeyer, Kirkwood, for appellant.

Respondent, pro se.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, whose property had been levied upon, appeals from an order denying his motion to quash execution. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, F'

# 11, IRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RODNEY WHITE In Re: Rodney White, applying

Judicial District Court, No. 299127. NO. 2023 KW 0062 

### MARCH 27, 2023 for supervisory Parish of East

I I writs, 19th Baton Rouge, BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE AND MILLE~, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. There is no record of an application for postconviction relief, allegedly filed on November 28, 2019. The record of the East Baton Rouge Parish Office of the Clerk of Court shows that on January 18, 2023,, the commissioner ordered the district attorney to file any prqcedural objections or an answer to relator's application for po

## 9tconviction relief, filed on May 11, 2021, and supplemented on'May 26, 2021. Therefore, I the district court is moving toward 1disposition of relator's postconviction relief application.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT JMG EW SMM I
EXHIBIT 3B

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-7 Filed 04/17/19 Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report (the Report) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended April 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bob Hogarth, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   Date: October 2, 2013   /s/ BOB HOGARTH Bob Hogarth Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Exhibit
32.1





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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Florham Consulting
Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Joseph J. Bianco, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Florham Consulting Corp. and will be retained by Florham Consulting
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





/s/  Joseph J.
    BiancoJoseph
      J. BiancoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





July 29,
2010
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear, )

)

Defendant. )

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SMB-003

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

BILLS OF PARTICULARS

Upon Motion of Defendant, Scott Spear, by and through his attorney undersigned, for

an Order for a Bill of Particulars, and good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the government produce Bills of Particulars that set

forth with specificity the following information:

1. The names of all alleged known, but unidentified, co-conspirators in Counts 1

and 52 of the Superseding Indictment.

2. The precise nature of the “specified unlawful activity” alleged in Counts 53-

100 of the Superseding Indictment.

3. The exact nexus between the Travel Act violations alleged in Counts 1051 of

the Superseding Indictment and the property listed in forfeiture Allegation No. 1.

4. The exact nexus between the alleged money laundering violations in Counts

52-100 of the Superseding Indictment and the property listed in Forfeiture Allegation No. 2.

Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) is found to commence on ____________

for a total of ______ days.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 788 Filed 10/20/19 Page 1 of 1