alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INTER
PARFUMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
officer of Inter Parfums, Inc., that the Quarterly Report of Inter Parfums, Inc.
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Inter Parfums,
Inc.





Date:
      August 9, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Russell
  GreenbergRussell
      GreenbergExecutive
      Vice President,Chief
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Inter Parfums, Inc. and will be retained by Inter Parfums, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 310 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure that safety net family 

planning centers are eligible for assistance under the drug discount program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2009 

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure that 

safety net family planning centers are eligible for assistance under the drug discount program. 

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 ‘‘Affordable Care for 

5 Women Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDING ACCESS TO DISCOUNT DRUG PRICES 

7 FOR SAFETY-NET PROVIDERS. 

8 (a) SAFETY-NET PROVIDER DRUG PRICE DIS9 COUNTS.—Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Serv10 ice Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)) is amended— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 310 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 

2 through (L) as subparagraphs (E) through (M), re3 spectively; and 

4 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C), the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(D) An entity that is a public or non7 profit entity that primarily provides a service or 

8 services described under section 318A or 

9 1001(a).’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

12 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony J. Kamerick, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Potomac Electric Power Company; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                    |  |                                                                      
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 5, 2012 |  | /s/ A. J. KAMERICK                                                   
|                    |  | Anthony J. Kamerick Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Document

Exhibit 4.8


AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE
TO THE
TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN


WHEREAS, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain subsidiaries of the Company the “Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Tax-Deferred Savings Plan” (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to implement certain restrictions with respect to investment in the employer stock funds maintained under the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 14.1 of the Plan, effective as of July 1, 2015, the Plan hereby is amended as follows:
1.    The final paragraph of Section 7.2(b) hereby is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Except as provided in Section 7.3(c) of this Plan and Section 401(a)(35) of the Code or applicable Regulations, restrictions (either direct or indirect) or conditions will not be imposed on investment in the TDS Common Stock Fund or USCC Common Stock Fund if such restrictions or conditions are not imposed on investment in the other investment funds available under the Plan.
 2.    Section 7.3 hereby is amended to add the following new subsection (c) thereto and to reletter the existing subsection (c) (entitled “ERISA Section 404(c) Plan”) as subsection (d) thereto:
(c)    Special Rules Concerning the Employer Stock Funds.  Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, (i) a Participant may not elect to invest more than 20% of the aggregate contributions newly made for his or her benefit in the TDS Common Stock Fund, the USCC Common Stock Fund or in such investment funds on a combined basis and (ii) a Participant may not transfer any portion of the Participant’s existing Account from investment funds other than the TDS Common Stock Fund or the USCC Common Stock Fund to investment in the TDS Common Stock Fund or the USCC Common Stock Fund if following such transfer more than 20% of the Participant’s existing Account would be invested in the TDS Common Stock Fund, the USCC Common Stock Fund or in such investment funds on a combined basis.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number Three to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 19th day of June, 2015.


						
	TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	/s/ LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
		
	By:	/s/ C. Theodore Herbert
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3192 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of the 

timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2010 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

tolling of the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Access to Vet5 erans Benefits Act of 2010’’. 


srobinson on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3192 IS

1 SEC. 2. TOLLING OF TIMING OF REVIEW FOR APPEALS OF 

2 FINAL DECISIONS OF BOARD OF VETERANS’ 

3 APPEALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7266(a) of title 38, 

5 United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘In order’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

7 Except as provided in paragraph (2), in order’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(2) The 120-day period described in paragraph (1) 

11 shall be extended upon a showing of good cause for such 

12 time as justice may require.’’. 

13 (b) APPLICABILITY.— 

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

15 7266(a) of such title, as added by subsection (a), 

16 shall apply to a notice of appeal filed with respect 

17 to a final decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

18 that was issued on or after July 24, 2008. 

19 (2) REINSTATEMENT.—Any petition for review 

20 filed with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

21 that was dismissed by such Court on or after July 

22 24, 2008, as untimely, shall, upon the filing of a pe23 tition by an adversely affected person filed not later 

24 than six months after the date of the enactment of 

25 this Act, be reinstated upon a showing that the petiVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 Apr 12, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3192.IS S3192

srobinson on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3192 IS

1 tioner had good cause for filing the petition on the 

2 date it was filed. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Garrett AVANS, Jr., Appellant v. Kirk D. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 05-7143.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2006.

Garrett Avans, Jr., Washington, DC, pro se.

Kirk D. Williams, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before: ROGERS, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*907
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s ruling entered on September 15, 2005, denying appellant’s motion for a default judgment and dismissing his case, be affirmed. The district court held that appellant had failed to prove his case, and appellant has not met his burden of showing that the district court’s ruling was erroneous. *See, e.g., Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.,*365 F.3d 1054, 1063 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“As the appellant, Peterson bears the burden of convincing us that the district court committed reversible error.”); *Patrick v. Jasper County,*901 F.2d 561, 566 (7th Cir.1990) (“It is Patrick’s burden as an appellant to bring to this court’s attention the alleged errors in the district court’s summary judgment order and cite relevant case law in support of his argument for reversal thereof.”)

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

December 15, 2008 

ERRATA

Appeal No. 2008-1178

Precedential Opinion, iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc. 

Decided: December 11, 2008 

Please make the following change: 

On page 8, line 3, delete “cause” and insert -- reason --.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60822

Summary Calendar

 

SHAHILA SABJAALI MAREDIA,

 

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 421 317 

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shahila Sabjaali Maredia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’(BIA’s) summary affirmance of the denial of her requests for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In light of the

BIA’s summary affirmance, we review the immigration judge’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
 

 

-2-

Maredia failsto show that substantial evidence supportsthatshe has an objective fear of being

persecuted if she returns to India. She has not shown that she will be singled out for persecution if

she returns or that there is a pattern of discrimination against Muslims that she cannot avoid by

moving to another part of the country. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 306-07 (5th Cir. 2005); 8

C.F.R. § 203.13(b)(2)(iii); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193-94 (5th Cir. 2004).

Because Maredia did not make the showing required to establish eligibility for asylum, she

cannot meet the more stringent standard necessary to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Nor does the record compel a finding that

Maredia met her burden of showing that more likely than not she would be tortured if she returned

to India, such that she is entitled to relief under the CAT. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352

(5th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, Maredia’s petition for review is DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Alesha P. and Another, Infants. Oswego County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Audrey B., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 919]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Kimberly M. Seager, J.), entered April 3, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, determined that respondent Audrey B. had abused her children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition determining that she abused her two daughters. Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court’s findings of abuse are supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Peter C.,*278 AD2d 911, 911 [2000]; *Matter of Sarah C.,*245 AD2d 1111, 1111-1112 [1997]; *Matter of Rhiannon B.,*237 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]). “We accord great weight and deference to [the c]ourt’s determinations, ‘including its drawing of inferences and assessment of credibility,’ and we will not disturb those determinations where, as here, they are supported by the record” *(Matter*
      *1370
      *of Arianna M. [Brian M.],*105 AD3d 1401, 1401 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 862 [2013]; see *Peter C.,*278 AD2d at 911). Present-Smith, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
Exhibit No. 99


                  Exhibit 99 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K
                  for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1996

    Cautionary Statements Regarding "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the Private
                    Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995


     The Company's Annual Report to Shareholders and its periodic reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, are among certain
communications by the Company which contain forward looking statements,
including statements regarding its financial position, results of operations,
market position and product development.  These forward looking statements are
based on current expectations.  As permitted by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Company is hereby filing the following
cautionary statements identifying important factors which, among others, could
cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from expected and
historical results:

     Changing business conditions including inflation and fluctuations in
     interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates.

     Competitive factors including managed care groups, institutions and
     government agencies seeking price discounts; technological advances
     attained by competitors; patents granted to competitors; potential generic
     competition for PREMARIN and for other health care and agricultural
     products as such products mature.

     Government laws and regulations affecting U.S. and international
     operations, including trade, monetary and fiscal policies, taxes (including
     the Section 936 income tax credit), price controls, changes in governments
     and legal systems, as well as actions affecting approvals of products and
     licensing.

     Difficulties or delays in product development including, but not limited
     to, the inability to identify viable new chemical compounds, successfully
     complete clinical trials, obtain and maintain regulatory approval for the
     compounds or gain and maintain market acceptance of approved products.
     Similar difficulties or delays can also affect the development of the
     Company's other businesses.

     Growth in costs and expenses, including changes in product mix, and the
     impact of any acquisitions or divestitures, restructuring and other unusual
     items that could result from evolving business strategies, evaluation of
     asset realization, and changing organizational structures.

     Significant litigation adverse to the Company including product liability
     risks related to the Company's health care and other products.

     Continued consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry could affect the
     Company's competitive position.
96-2292.

#### State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reinhart.

Seneca App. Nos. 13-94-38 and 13-94-39. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1525, 674 N.E.2d 376. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
II 

Calendar No. 311 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3092 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

5070 Vegas Valley Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ‘‘Joseph A. 

Ryan Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2010 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5070 Vegas Valley Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ‘‘Joseph A. Ryan Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOSEPH A. RYAN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 5070 Vegas Valley Drive in Las 

6 Vegas, Nevada, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jo7 seph A. Ryan Post Office Building’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3092 PCS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph A. Ryan Post 

5 Office Building’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 311 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3092 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ‘‘Joseph A. Ryan al Service located at 5070 Vegas Valley Drive in 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Ruiz *v.*Eickerman.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

January *24,*1881.)

1. Discharge in Bankrputcv—Foreign Creditor—Domestic Forum.

A discharge in bankruptcy can be pleaded to the suit oí a. foreign creditor in the domestic iorum.—[Ed.

Demurrer to Plea of Discharge.

*Myers & Arnstein,*for demurrer.

*Marshall é Barclay, contra.*

Treat, D. J.

A' demurrer is interposed to the answer of Eickerman, ydio pleads discharge in bankruptcy. The plaintiff is an alien non-resident, insisting upon his demand against the defendant, and that a discharge in bankruptcy under the laws of the United States does not relieve the defendant of plaintiff’s demand. The proposition involved pertains to international laws, concerning which there ought to be no discord. If the cases of insolvent laws as among the states of this country, *inter sese,*are considered, the fullest exposition of which is given in *Cook*v. *Moffet,*5 How. 307, or, as to foreign demands, in *Murray*v. *De Rotterhem,*6 John. Ch. 52, it will be ascertained that the rule is this: An insolvent law, or bankrupt law, has no extraterritorial force. If the foreign party sues, despite the insolvent or bankrupt discharge, in the law of the forum, he must accept the rules pertaining thereto, with the exception of such modifications as spring from the complex nature of our state and federal governments. As the laws of the federal government in bankruptcy are supreme, a discharge thereunder is sufficient, whether the creditor is a citizen,of a state other than that in which the bankrupt is a resident, or is an alien, a resident of a foreign country. Of *791course there can be no extraterritorial operation of a United States statute as to the discharge of personal obligation. When the intraterritorial law has granted such a discharge as to all creditors, the foreign creditor suing in the domestic tribunal is subject to the *lex fori,*and his right to sue is dependent thereon. The plaintiff in this suit bad a cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff was a non-resident and citizen of Spain, and as such could have recovered judgment. But defendant availed himself of provisions of the bankrupt act under which the plaintiff could, by proper proceedings, have proved his demand and shared in dividends made. Ho elected not to do so, and therefore his demand is discharged as to this defendant, so far as the United States law operates; that is, within the territorial limits of the United States. The discharge in bankruptcy is valid, in the absence of fraud, in whatever court of the United States a suit is brought, although it may not protect the defendant from a suit brought in a foreign jurisdiction, if lie should be found therein. The demurrer to this special answer of Eiokerinan is overruled.