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

Calendar No. 109 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 256 

[Report No. 113–55] 

To amend Public Law 93–435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, 

providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) (by request) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Reported by Mr. WYDEN, with an amendment 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 93–435 with respect to the Northern 

Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin 

Islands, and American Samoa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section and section 2 of 

5 Public Law 93–435 (48 U.S.C. 1705, 1706) are amended 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 256 RS

1 by inserting ‘‘the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

2 Islands,’’ after ‘‘Guam,’’ each place it appears. 

3 (b) REFERENCES TO DATE OF ENACTMENT.—For 

4 the purposes of the amendment made by subsection (a), 

5 each reference in Public Law 93–435 to the ‘‘date of en6 actment’’ shall be considered to be a reference to the date 

7 of the enactment of this section. 

8 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF SCHEDULED WAGE INCREASES IN 

9 THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN 

10 MARIANA ISLANDS. 

11 Section 8103(b)(1)(B) of the Fair Minimum Wage Act 

12 of 2007 (29 U.S.C. 206 note; Public Law 110–28) is amend13 ed by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2011, 2013, and 

14 2015’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 109 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 256 

[Report No. 113–55] 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 93–435 with respect to the 

Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Reported with an amendment 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
News United States Air Force
 AF chief of staff shares vision with Andersen AFB AirmenPublished Feb. 12, 2018
                        
                        By Senior Airman Zachary Bumpus
                        
                        
                        36th Wing Public Affairs
                **ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam (AFNS) --**
                Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David L. Goldfein, and his wife Dawn, visited Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 7 and 8, 2018.
Goldfein and his wife met with service members and spouses to get a firsthand look at how they accomplish and support Andersen AFB’s mission. Goldfein spoke about the diverse air combat assets on Andersen AFB and the role they play in the defense of the Indo-Pacific region.
“Our job in the U.S. military is to be ready,” Goldfein said. “Every moment counts and we must do everything we can. It’s our readiness for that is our greatest deterrent.”
Focusing on the squadron as the heart of Air Force readiness, Goldfein emphasized the continued need to empower unit leaders at all levels in order to ensure mission success.
“Squadrons are the absolute heartbeat of our Air Force,” Goldfein said. “It’s where Airmen arrive when they come from tech school, where we teach them what it means to be an Airman and it’s where we generate readiness and innovation. I trust our squadron command teams to be able to make the mission happen, if we can just give them the resources and get out of the way.”
While at Andersen AFB, Goldfein toured the flightline, met with aviators and support Airmen and viewed a demonstration of the agile combat employment capabilities of the 36th Contingency Response Group.
As Goldfein toured the operational side of Andersen AFB, his wife Dawn toured base support facilities and met with key spouses whom Goldfein described as an integral part of a successful command team.
“When I talk about squadrons, I say squadron command teams,” he said. “Because it’s a commander, a senior (noncommissioned officer) and their spouses who work together to take care of the mission and the people who are assigned to it.”
The visit culminated with an all-call with service members. Goldfein expressed his gratitude for all of Andersen AFB Airmen and supporting mission partners for their contributions to readiness in the Indo-Pacific.
“Let me say to each of you, thank you,” Goldfein said. “Thank you for what you are doing, thank you for what your families are doing. This is as important a time as there has ever been to serve in uniform and I can’t be more proud to serve with you.”CSAF 



Air Mobility Command 



Guam 



AMC 



readiness 



visit 



chief of staff of the Air Force 



Gen. Goldfein 



Indo-Pacific 



36th Contingency Response Group 



distinguished visit 



Andersen AFB
News United States Air Force
 Combat Air Forces squadron commander candidates namedPublished Oct. 19, 2017
                        
                        By  Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                Air Force officials have selected 335 officers as candidates for Combat Air Forces squadron command in 2018.  
The CAF squadron command selection board was held at the Air Force Personnel Center Aug. 22, 2017. The candidates are eligible for any worldwide command opening to include 365-day extended deployment opportunities. 
Wing and group hiring officials will use the candidate list to fill projected 2018 CAF squadron commander vacancies. Members appearing on this listing may also be considered for other command opportunities outside of the CAF. 
The board typically selects more qualified officers as candidates than there are projected command vacancies to account for any unexpected events during the year. Therefore, not all officers on the list will get command assignments. 
Board members reviewed all aspects of the candidates’ records, duty histories, demonstrated leadership ability, professional development and permanent change of station eligibility to identify those most qualified for command.
The CAF candidate list includes an additional 82 CAF members selected by the Air Education and Training Command HAWK squadron commander board who are also eligible to command CAF squadrons.
Candidates will remain on the list if not selected for command until the list is superseded by the following year’s results, unless they are removed for one of a variety of reasons such as selection for another assignment opportunity.
The candidate list is posted to myPers. To view the list, select “Active Duty Officer” from the dropdown menu and search “CAF Squadron.” Prior to posting the list on myPers, AFPC provided senior raters with advanced knowledge of their officers’ selection to allow notification through the chain of command.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to myPers. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.leadership 



deployment 



AFPC 



AETC 



candidates 



selection 



squadron command 



Air Force Personnel Center 



Air Education and Training Command 



board 



Combat Air Forces
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James RICHARDSON, Appellant.

No. 58504.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Feb. 18, 1975.

*17John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Daniel R. Devereaux, Brady, Brady & Devereaux, St. Louis, for appellant.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Appellant was charged by information in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction with the sale of an obscene publication in violation of Section 563.280, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., a misdemeanor, and was found guilty by the court; a jury having been expressly waived.

This is one of five somewhat related cases. We retained appellate jurisdiction of State v. Flynn, 519 S.W.2d 10 (Mo.1975), because there was a constitutional issue pertaining to an alleged illegal seizure. We retain jurisdiction of this case for the same reason.

On August 1, 1973, police officer Gregory entered a bookstore at 4311 Manchester Avenue. He asked appellant, an employee of the store, if he had any books which would have pictures of sexual relations. Appellant pointed out a display case and told the officer he would find the kind of book he wanted on that rack. The officer selected one book with a cellophane wrapping and, after appellant assured the officer it had the pictures in it that he wanted, the officer purchased the book. He and his partner then left the store, looked through the book, returned and placed appellant under arrest.

Appellant does not contend that the contents of the book are not obscene. They clearly are “hard core” obscenity.

Appellant’s first point is that the court erred in admitting the book into evidence for the reason that his “arrest was without probable cause and based upon the arresting officer’s personal opinion as to the obscenity of the publication rather than pursuant to a prior judicial determination of its obscenity vel non.” This is the identical point considered and ruled in State v. Shouse, 519 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.1975), and State v. Hughes, 519 S.W.2d 18 (Mo.1975), and substantially the same point presented in State v. Flynn, 519 S.W.2d 10 (Mo.1975). We need not here restate the reasons for the ruling, but refer to those cases to demonstrate there is no merit to this point.

Appellant’s second point is the identical constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 563.280 on the basis of vagueness and overbroadness as was made in State v. Flynn, 519 S.W.2d 10 (Mo.1975). In this case, as in the Flynn case, *18no constitutional challenge to the statute for the reasons now asserted was made prior to the motion for new trial. The issues now presented have been expressly ruled adverse to appellant’s contention in State v. Flynn, supra. We need not again set forth here the reasons for that ruling.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOUSER, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion by STOCKARD, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All of the Judges, concur.
**CERTIFICATION      BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**

**THE      MIDDLEBY CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT      TO RULE 13A-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:              November 9,              2006  |                                                                                                          |                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                                                                                                          |
|                                              |                                                                                                     |                                   |
|                                                   |                                                                                                          | /s/ Timothy              J. FitzGerald |
|                                                   | Timothy              J. FitzGerald                                                                            |
|                                                   | Vice                  President and Chief Financial Officer of The                  Middleby Corporation |

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY WILLIAMSON.

May 7, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### DR. JOSEPH E. GRODJESK v. THERESA FAGHANI.

May 6, 1985.

Motion of the State Board of Dentistry for leave to appeal is granted. (See 198 *N.J.Super.*449)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31176 Summary Calendar

CAROL U. TRAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY NATIONAL BANK OF BATON ROUGE, PAUL R. NOWACKI, and KOREEN H. WALKER, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CV-504-B-M2)

April 20, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Carol U. Trahan appeals the judgment of the district court granting defendants City National Bank of Baton Rouge, Paul R. Nowacki, and Koreen H. Walker summary judgment in this case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case. Finding no error, we affirm.2

It is undisputed that Trahan can state a prima facie case of age discrimination. In support of their summary judgment motion,
t he defendants offered as a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for Trahan’s discharge that she was insubordinate. Because Trahan failed to provide sufficient summary judgment evidence to show that her age was a determinative factor in the decision to fire her, her claim must fail. See Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools , 75 F.3d 989,
993-94 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Although we may not agree that Trahan’s conduct amounted to insubordination, Trahan nonetheless failed to show that her age played any factor in the decision to discharge her. Moreover, Trahan’s case against defendants Walker and Nowacki
must also be dismissed because they were merely supervisory employees, not her employer. See Stults v. Conoco, Inc. , 76 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that the ADEA provides no basis for individual liability for supervisory employees). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14187

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/3, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00705-CR

Larry Alexander, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-301715, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Larry Alexander was charged with capital murder. He pled guilty to

murder in a plea agreement and was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Although

appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal complaining of ineffective assistance of counsel, the

trial court has certified that the case is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right to appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We therefore dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) (if

trial court does not certify that defendant has right to appeal, “appeal must be dismissed”).

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed

Filed: January 21, 2009

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Reebok International Ltd. (the “Company”), doeshereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1)              theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005  (“10-Q”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              theinformation contained in the Company’s 10-Q being filed fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|                        | /s/ Kenneth  Watchmaker       |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Kenneth  Watchmaker           |
|                        | Executive Vice  President and |
|                        | Chief Financial  Officer      |
|                        |                          |
|                        |                          |
| Dated:  August 9, 2005 |                          |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ReebokInternational Ltd. and will be retained by Reebok International Ltd. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8120
GEORGE ALLEN PORTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-433-AM) Submitted: May 14, 1996 Decided: June 13, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curam opinion. George Allen Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Allen Porter appeals from a district court decision,issued after remand, granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent. We have reviewed the district court opinion and find noreversible error. Therefore, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Porter v. Murray , No. CA-94-433-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in thematerials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### FRED S. NOLAN v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY.

May 24, 1985.

Petition for certification granted. (See 197 *N.J.Super.*468)
##### 



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 the Annual Report of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Geert Cauwenbergh, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company. GEERT CAUWENBERGHGeert Cauwenbergh, Ph.D.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal executive officer)March
25, 2005
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries and Variable Interest Entity



|                                                   |  |                       
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                   |  | Place of Incorporation
|Subsidiaries                                       |  |                       
|                                                   | 
|Giganology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.                     |  | PRC                   
|                                                   | 
|Xunlei Network Technologies Limited                |  | British Virgin Islands
|                                                   | 
|Xunlei Network Technologies Limited                |  | Hong Kong             
|                                                   | 
|Xunlei Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.               |  | PRC                   
|                                                   | 
|Variable Interest Entity                           |  |                       
|                                                   | 
|Shenzhen Xunlei Networking Technologies, Co., Ltd. |  | PRC