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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4978 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the State offices 

of rural health program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Ms. SMITH, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. HOEVEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Ms. LUMMIS) 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 reauthorize the 

State offices of rural health 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 ‘‘State Offices of Rural 

5 Health Program Reauthorization Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE OFFICES OF RURAL HEALTH. 

7 Section 338J(i)(1) of the Public Health Service Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 254r(i)(1)) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘$12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022’’ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4978 IS

1 and inserting ‘‘$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 

2 through 2027’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
No. 32,669

*No.*32,670

#### Farm Mortgage Holding Company, *Appellant,*v. Louise Miller, a Widow (Revived in the names of Frederick W. Miller, Executor of the Estate of Louise Miller, deceased, et al.) et al., *Appellees.*Farm Mortgage Holding Company, *Appellant,*v. Louise Miller, a Widow (Revived in the names of Frederick W. Miller, Executor of the Estate of Louise Miller, deceased, et al.) et al., *Appellees.*

(57 P. 2d 35)

Opinion filed May 9, 1936.

*Alfred E. Carroll,*of Alma, and *John F. Reinhardt,*of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant.

*E. W. Stuewe,*of Alma, and *Ben C. Pickering,*of Wamego, for the appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hutchison, J.:

Two mortgage-foreclosure cases, both commenced by the'same plaintiff and against the same defendant, but on different tracts of land, have been consolidated upon appeal. The defendant was Louise Miller, a widow, who has died since the appeal was perfected, and a motion for revivor in the name of the executors of her estate and others was allowed. The appeal in each case has been taken by the plaintiff from the ruling of the trial court granting an extension of the eighteen-months period of redemption under the provisions of chapter 226 of the Laws of 1935, generally known as the second moratorium act of 1935. The- ruling in the case of *Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Anthony,*142 Kan. 670, 52 P. 2d 1208, is applicable to the facts in these cases and the granting of further extensions under the moratorium law was erroneous.

The judgment is reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from 
     HYENA CAPITAL, INC. September 30, 1996 financial  statements and  is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894537
<NAME>                        HYENA CAPITAL, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
### [§793. Repealed. July 28, 1953, ch. 253, §6, 67 Stat. 226]

Section, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 924, related to appointment of reporter-commissioners by Court of Claims and employment of stenographers therefor.
#### §§ 204.44-204.50 [Reserved]
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5241 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise the definition 

of the term ‘‘tipped employee’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2022 

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

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

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise 

the definition of the term ‘‘tipped employee’’, 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 ‘‘Tipped Employee Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TIPPED EMPLOYEES. 

7 Section 3(t) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

8 (29 U.S.C. 203(t)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘(t)’’ and inserting ‘‘(t)(1)’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5241 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘engaged in an occupation in 

2 which he customarily and regularly receives more 

3 than $30 a month in tips.’’ and inserting ‘‘, without 

4 regard to the duties of the employee, who receives 

5 tips and other cash wages for a period described in 

6 paragraph (2) at a rate that when combined with 

7 the cash wage required under subsection 

8 (m)(2)(A)(i) is greater than or equal to the wage in 

9 effect under section 6(a)(1).’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) The period described in this paragraph may be 

12 (as determined by the employer) a period of 1 day, 1 week, 

13 every other week, every pay period, or 1 month.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore Potash, Appellant.

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting defendant of knowingly possessing a policy slip (Penal Law, §§ 974, 975), reversed on the facts, the information dismissed and the defendant discharged. The proof fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 207

**Question 207:** The dose limits for an individual member of the public as specified in 10 CFR 20.1301 are specified in terms of rem. Since rem is an absorbed dose, must an individual be present for the dose limit to apply?

**Answer:** No. If using 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (1) to show compliance with dose limits, occupancy times (time an individual is present) may be taken into account. If using the method in 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2) (ii) to demonstrate compliance, dose is calculated as if an individual were continuously present, regardless of whether an individual is continuously present. See related Questions 68, Set 2, and 102 Set 3.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1302, 10 CFR 20.1301)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, November 08, 2017
(No. 819

Claimant awarded $887.83.)

#### Ramapo Ajax Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— when *refund may he made.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in *Vulcanite Roofing Qo.*v. *State, supra.*

Whitman & Miller, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinioii of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of certain portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the year 1922, total excess paid by above claimant amounting to $887.83.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of |887.83.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22588]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / 
Notices

[[Page 60141]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 14, 2004, from 3:30 p.m. to 
5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lake County Board of 
Supervisor's Chambers at 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie McIntosh, Committee 
Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Upper Lake Ranger 
District, 10025 Elk Mountain Road, Upper Lake, CA 95485. (707) 275-
2361; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d39303e343329322e351d3b2e733b383973282e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="294d444a40475d465a41694f5a074f4c4d075c5a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Review and approval of the minutes of the August 26, 2004 meeting; (2) 
Discuss other business for 2004; (3) Results from the Lake County 
Supervisor's Meeting; (4) Letters to Congress on retention of the RACs; 
(5) Discuss project cost accounting USFS/County of Lake; (6) Set next 
meeting date and (7) Public Comment period. The meeting is open to the 
public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: September 30, 2004.
Blaine P. Baker,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-22588 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.308 What happens if a HUBZone small business concern receives notice of its certification but it does not appear in DSBS as a certified HUBZone small business concern? ( a ) A certified HUBZone small business concern that has received SBA's notice of certification, but does not appear in DSBS (or successor system) as a certified HUBZone small business concern within 10 business days, should immediately notify the D/HUB via email at *hubzone@sba.gov .*
( b ) A certified HUBZone small business concern that has received SBA's notice of certification must appear as a certified HUBZone small business concern in DSBS (or successor system) in order to be eligible for HUBZone contracts (*i.e.,* it cannot “opt out” of a public display in the System for Award Management (*SAM.gov*) or DSBS (or successor systems)).
[84 FR 65244, Nov. 26, 2019]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

PR No. 99-210 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on human factors on October 22 in

Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittee will review a proposed revision to NUREG-1624, “Technical Basis

and Implementation Guidelines for A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA),” its

pilot application to assess fire risk, and other related issues.

The meeting will be held in room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building,

at 11545 Rockville Pike, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

Those who seek additional information or schedule updates about this meeting should

contact Noel Dudley, at 301-415-6888.

Other aspects of the meeting will be described in an upcoming edition of the Federal

Register. ACRS meeting notices, transcripts and letter reports are available on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

###
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Allegro Biodiesel Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Heng Chuk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





/s/
                Heng ChukHeng
                ChukChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                13, 2007




A
      signed
      original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1739. State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit

All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or Possession in which it is made.

Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or Possession from which they are taken.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 947.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §688 (R.S. §906).

Words "Possession of the United States" were substituted for "or any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Words "or copies thereof" were added in two places. Copies have always been used to prove records and books under section 688 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and the addition of these words clarifies the former implied meaning of such section.

In the first paragraph of the revised section words "a judge of a court of record" were substituted for words "the presiding justice of the court" and in the second paragraph "judge" was substituted for "presiding justice" for convenience and without change of substance.

Words "and its Territories and Possessions" were added after "United States", near the end of the section, in view of provisions of section 688 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for the admission of records and books in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or "in any such country." (Changed to "Possession" in this section.)

See also Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.
#### In the Matter of the Application to Stay Arbitration between Buster Boy Suit Co., Inc., Appellant, and Springs Cotton Mills, Respondent.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. F., Colin, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shiéñtag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div._782.] _ __
No: II-23-002 February 14, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson 404-997-4417 

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have named Kevin 

Pfeil as the agency’s new resident inspector at the Browns Ferry nuclear power 

plant in Athens, Alabama. He joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Jeffery 

Steward and Resident Inspector Nick Karlovich at the three-unit site operated 

by the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Pfeil joined the NRC in 2021 as a project engineer in the Resident 

Inspector Development Program in the Region II office in Atlanta. Prior to the 

NRC, he worked for seven years as a nuclear engineer at the Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, where he helped maintain several aircraft carriers in

Washington, San Diego, Norfolk, and Japan. 

“Kevin joins a distinguished group of NRC inspectors who have graduated from one of our 

nation’s five service academies. He brings the exemplary character of U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy graduates and real-world experience working on the U.S. Navy’s nuclear aircraft carriers 

to his new role at Browns Ferry,” said NRC Region II Administrator Laura Dudes. 

Pfeil graduated with a bachelor’s degree in systems engineering with a concentration in 

nuclear engineering from the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

The NRC assigns at least two resident inspectors to each operating U.S. commercial nuclear 

power plant. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, 

monitoring plant operations, major work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Freeman, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### §1393. Actuarial assumptions

#### (a) Use by plan actuary in determining unfunded vested benefits of a plan for computing withdrawal liability of employer

The corporation may prescribe by regulation actuarial assumptions which may be used by a plan actuary in determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer's withdrawal liability under this part. Withdrawal liability under this part shall be determined by each plan on the basis of—

(1) actuarial assumptions and methods which, in the aggregate, are reasonable (taking into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations) and which, in combination, offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan, or

(2) actuarial assumptions and methods set forth in the corporation's regulations for purposes of determining an employer's withdrawal liability.

#### (b) Factors determinative of unfunded vested benefits of plan for computing withdrawal liability of employer

In determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer's withdrawal liability under this part, the plan actuary may—

(1) rely on the most recent complete actuarial valuation used for purposes of section 412 of title 26 and reasonable estimates for the interim years of the unfunded vested benefits, and

(2) in the absence of complete data, rely on the data available or on data secured by a sampling which can reasonably be expected to be representative of the status of the entire plan.

#### (c) Determination of amount of unfunded vested benefits

For purposes of this part, the term "unfunded vested benefits" means with respect to a plan, an amount equal to—

(A) the value of nonforfeitable benefits under the plan, less

(B) the value of the assets of the plan.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4213, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1233; amended Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7891(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO
 
 SECTION
            906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
            connection with the annual report of China
            Digital Communication Group (the
            "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
            with
            the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
            I, Wu
            Jiangcheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.


Date:
                August 6,
                2008
              By: */s/ Wu
                Jiangcheng*Wu JiangchengChief
                Financial
                Officer