alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Department of Justice
 On October 16, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Metal Dynamics Detroit, LLC,*
                     Civil Action No. 14-13993. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the regulations that govern the handling and disposal of refrigerant containing appliances as well as violations of opacity limits at defendant's scrap metal and iron recycling facility in Detroit, Michigan. The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief and pay a civil penalty of $110,000. The consent decree also requires that defendant perform two supplemental environmental projects, each valued at $200,000 for a total of $400,000. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Metal Dynamics Detroit, LLC,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-10192. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $8.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2014-25091 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Denis Carr, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03957-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8651 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: April 12, 2018 

USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC (DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Wallace Kleindienst/Mary Sue Feldmeier 

Attorney for Defendant: Sean Chapman/Jaime Calle, Retained 

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon 

Court Reporter: Candy Potter 

Spanish Interpreter for victim’s family: Sandy Frady 

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

JURY TRIAL – Day 15 

9:39 a.m. - In absence of the jury, counsel and the Court discuss the testimony of defense witness Gary 

Rini, jury instructions and the form of verdict. The Court rules on the Government’s sealed motion 

(Doc. 392). Formal sealed order to follow. 

The jury enters at 9:58 a.m. 

Testimony of defense witness Grant Fredericks resumes. 

Defense exhibit 1526 is admitted without objection for demonstrative purposes only. 

Defense exhibits 1465, 1543 and 1544 are admitted without objection. 

 

Recess taken 10:49 a.m. – 11:03 a.m. 

Cross examination of the witness by Ms. Feldmeier. 

11:37 a.m. – Redirect of the witness. 

Defense exhibit 1470, previously admitted for demonstrative purposes, is admitted without objection. 

11:47 a.m. – Defense witness Pete Hermansen is sworn and examined by Mr. Chapman. 

12:09 a.m. – Cross examination of the witness by Mr. Kleindienst. 

Government’s exhibit 288 is admitted over objection. 

Lunch recess taken 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. 

Cross examination of the witness resumes. 

1:41 p.m. – Redirect of the witness. 

Government’s exhibit 386 is admitted by defense counsel without objection. 

1:58 p.m. – Defense witness Gary Rini is sworn and examined by Mr. Calle. 

2:36 p.m. – No cross examination of the witness. 

 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 443 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 2
USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Date: April 12, 2018 

Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC (DTF) Page 2 of 2 

Page 2 of 2 

Recess taken 2:38 p.m. – 2:52 p.m. 

Defense witness Eugene Liscio is sworn and examined by Mr. Calle. 

Defense exhibits 1499, 1503, 1452, 1453 and 1514 are admitted without objection. 

Defense exhibits 1516, 1551, 1552 and 1462A are admitted without objection for demonstrative 

purposes only. 

3:59 p.m. – Cross examination of the witness by Ms. Feldmeier. 

4:07 p.m. – No redirect of the witness. 

4:11 p.m. – Government’s rebuttal witness Philip Trompetter is sworn and examined by Ms. Feldmeier. 

4:31 p.m. – Cross examination of the witness by Mr. Chapman. 

4:50 p.m. – Redirect of the witness. 

The jury is released at 4:58 p.m. 

In absence of the jury, counsel and the Court discuss jury instructions and the form of verdict. 

Proceedings recessed for the day at 5:10 p.m. Trial continues to 4/16/2018 at 10:00 a.m. before Chief 

Judge Raner C. Collins. 

Jury Trial: 6 Hours 3 Minutes 

Start: 9:39 a.m. 

Stop: 5:10 p.m. 

 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 443 Filed 04/12/18 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.3
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906
OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       /s/ James E. FerrellJames E. FerrellChairman and Chief Executive Officer ofFerrellgas, Inc., the Partnerships generalpartner/s/ Kevin T. KellyKevin T. KellySenior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Ferrellgas, Inc., the Partnershipsgeneral partner
 
 *
    
    As required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, a signed original of this written statement has been provided
to the Partnership
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Crew-4 Q&A With Students at Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"O6ZjaEpX8j\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-crew-4-qa-with-students-at-martin-luther-king-jr-memorial-library-2\/\">NASA\u2019s Crew-4 Q&A With Students at Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-crew-4-qa-with-students-at-martin-luther-king-jr-memorial-library-2\/embed\/#?secret=O6ZjaEpX8j\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Crew-4 Q&A With Students at Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library” — NASA\" data-secret=\"O6ZjaEpX8j\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/52782508755-c3a998cde9-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### H. K. Rachford et al v. J. G. Lindsay's Heirs et al.

Limitation of Actions — Resulting Trust.

A resulting trust is not excepted from the operation of the statutes of limitation, which was not suspended by the death of the ancestor of the appellants.

(see volume 2 KENTUCKY OPINIONS, PAGE 188.)

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

April 15, 1869.

*Hawkins, Fishe, for appellants.*

*Hallam, Lindseys, for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

As adjudged on the appeal of Sarah B. Carney, the conveyance to Carneal and by him to Lindsay was on an *implied*trust. The ancestor of the appellant in this case was a party to the conveyance to Carneal and was *sui juris.*Such a resulting trust is not excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations, which was not suspended by the death of the ancestor of the appellants; and moreover presumptions of adjustment arising from the long lapse of time would alone repel the alleged equity of these appellants.

Consequently, on the statutory bar and also legal presumption, the dismission of the cross petition of the appellants seems to have been right.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 518

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide the death penalty for

the intentional transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus to

an innocent victim of a Federal offense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide the death

penalty for the intentional transmission of the Human

Immunodeficiency Virus to an innocent victim of a Federal offense.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection for Innocent

5 Victims of AIDS Transmission Act’’.
2

•HR 518 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION FOR INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AIDS

2 TRANSMISSION.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 51 of title 18, United

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow5 ing:

6 ‘‘§ 1122. Protection for innocent victims of AIDS

7 transmission

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, during the commission

9 of any Federal offense, knowingly engages in any sexual

10 contact with another person and through such contact

11 knowingly transfers the human immunodeficiency virus to

12 that person, without that person’s consent, or attempts

13 to do so, shall be subject to the penalty of death, or shall

14 be imprisoned for life or any term of years.

15 ‘‘(b) PROCEDURES.—For the purposes of chapter

16 228 of this title, an offense under this section shall be

17 deemed a homicide offense.’’.

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

19 at the beginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States

20 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘1122. Protection for innocent victims of AIDS transmission.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 4.27


 


First Amendment to the Warrant Agreement


 


dated as of September 18, 2020


 


by and between


 


	WISeKey International Holdings Ltd

General-Guisan-Strasse 6, 6300 Zug, Switzerland	(hereinafter the Company)
	 	 
	
        And
	 
	 	 
	Crede CG III, Ltd.

Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda	(hereinafter the Warrant Holder)
	 	(the Company and the Warrant Holder each a Party and together the Parties)


 


regarding the grant by the Company of the Warrant Right (as
defined herein)


 






     


     


    

 


WHEREAS


 


		A.	The Company and the Warrant Holder are parties to a Warrant Agreement dated as of September 28,2018 (as further amended hereby
or as amended in the future, the "Warrant Agreement”)



 


Now, therefore, the Parties agree as
follows:


 


		1.	Amendments to the Warrant Agreement



 


Section 2 (c) is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:


 


The Warrant may be exercised
at any date and time between effective Disbursement pursuant to the terms of the Convertible Loan Agreement and the close of business
on the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date (the Exercise Period).


 


		2.	General Terms



 


		(a)	Except as amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Warrant Agreement remain in full force and effect.



 


		(b)	This document contains the entire agreement of the Parties in connection with the subject matter of this Amendment and cannot
be changed or terminated orally.



 


		(c)	If there is an express conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Warrant Agreement, the terms of this
Amendment will govern and control.



 


[Signatures on the Next Page]


 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Warrant Holder, each
by its duly authorized officers, have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.


 


	
        WISeKey International Holding Ltd
	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Carlos Moreira	 	/s/ Peter Ward
	Carlos Moreira

        Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
	 	Peter Ward

        Chief Financial Officer and Member of the Board of Directors

	 	 	 
	Crede CG III, Ltd.	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Terren Peizer	 	 
	Terren Peizer

        Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 2 Deny and Opinion Filed January 19, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01102-CV IN RE PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-02785-C MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Before the Court are relator’s D ecember 14, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires re lator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004 ) (orig. proceeding). Based on our review of the petition, record, and response, we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate an entitlement to ma ndamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).–2– We deny relator’s motion for emergency stay as moot.

211102F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         177,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,995
<INVENTORY>                                     58,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               566,475
<PP&E>                                         269,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,177,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          435,656
<BONDS>                                      1,517,572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                    (776,170)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,177,478
<SALES>                                         12,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,784
<CGS>                                           (9,427)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (9,427)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2995
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (329,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (329,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (326,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.079)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.079)



</TABLE>
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 514

AN ACT

To permit the waiver of District of Columbia resiColumbia. Office of the Inspector General of the District of dency requirements for certain employees of the
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 514

AN ACT

To permit the waiver of District of Columbia residency requirements for certain employees of the Office of the

Inspector General of the District of Columbia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 514 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia

3 Inspector General Improvement Act of 1997’’.

4 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CER5 TAIN EMPLOYEES OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

6 Section 906 of the District of Columbia Government

7 Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (sec. 1–

8 610.6, D.C. Code) is amended—

9 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘or sub10 section (d)’’ after ‘‘subsection (c)’’; and

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub12 section:

13 ‘‘(d) At the request of the Inspector General (as de14 scribed in section 208(a) of the District of Columbia Pro15 curement Practices Act of 1985), the Director of Person16 nel may waive the application of subsections (a) and (b)

17 to employees of the Office of the Inspector General.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 18,

1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25284]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, 
Liquidator, or Manager

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the 
following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as 
indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in 
the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that 
the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the 
statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal 
Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the 
identification of any institutions which have been placed in 
liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of 
Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: October 20, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.

                                           Institutions in Liquidation
                                             (In alphabetical order)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FDIC Ref. No.                Bank name                   City                State         Date closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10506.......................  NBRS Financial.........  Rising Sun.............  MD                    10/17/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-25284 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 571

To amend the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act)

to require that contract work covered by the Act which requires licensing

be performed by a person who is so licensed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the DavisBacon Act) to require that contract work covered by

the Act which requires licensing be performed by a person who is so licensed.

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

3 SECTION 1. LICENSING.

4 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of March

5 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) is amended by

6 adding at the end the following: ‘‘A contract covered by

7 this subsection which is to be carried out in a State which

8 requires persons performing the work under the contract
2

HR 571 IH

1 to be licensed shall be carried out by a person who is so

2 licensed.’’.

Æ
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS WILLIAM MANNING.

September 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 234 *N.J.Super.*147).