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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 169 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 169

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow the sworn affidavit of 
  a veteran who served in combat during the Korean War or an earlier 
conflict to be accepted as proof of service-connection of a disease or 
  injury alleged to have been incurred or aggravated by such service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

 Mr. Reynolds (for himself, Mr. McGovern, and Mrs. Maloney) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow the sworn affidavit of 
  a veteran who served in combat during the Korean War or an earlier 
conflict to be accepted as proof of service-connection of a disease or 
  injury alleged to have been incurred or aggravated by such service.

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

SECTION 1. SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF KOREAN CONFLICT AND EARLIER COMBAT 
              VETERANS TO BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF OF SERVICE-CONNECTION OF 
              DISEASE OR INJURY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR 
              AGGRAVATED DURING COMBAT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1154(b) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
            (2) by inserting ``after July 27, 1953,'' after ``in active 
        service'';
            (3) by designating the third sentence as paragraph (3) and 
        in that paragraph inserting ``under paragraph (1) or (2)'' 
        after ``in each case''; and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as designated by 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the 
enemy in active service on or before July 27, 1953, with a military, 
naval, or air organization of the United States during a period of war, 
campaign, or expedition, if there is no clear and convincing evidence 
to the contrary the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of 
service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been 
incurred in or aggravated by such service the sworn affidavit of the 
veteran attesting to the service-connection of such disease or injury, 
notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such 
incurrence or aggravation in such service.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to affidavits submitted after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 330.703 Agency responsibilities for deciding who is well-qualified. ( a ) Agencies must define “well-qualified” for their specific vacancies, consistent with this subpart, and uniformly apply that definition to all ICTAP eligibles being considered for the vacancy.
( b ) Agencies must conduct an independent second review and document the specific job-related reasons whenever an ICTAP eligible is determined to be not well-qualified for the vacancy under the agency's definition. An agency must give the ICTAP eligible the written results of this review as required by § 330.706(d).
### §59ee. Portion of Sacramento River Barge Canal declared to not be navigable waters of United States

For purposes of bridge administration, the Sacramento River Barge Canal, which connects the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel with the Sacramento River in West Sacramento, Yolo County, California, is declared to not be navigable waters of the United States for purposes of the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.) from the eastern boundary of the Port of Sacramento to a point 1,200 feet east of the William G. Stone Lock.

(Pub. L. 102–241, §34, Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2223.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The General Bridge Act of 1946, referred to in text, is title V of act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, 60 Stat. 847, which is classified generally to subchapter III (§525 et seq.) of chapter 11 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 525 of this title and Tables.
### subpart 2—general requirements
**INLAND  FIBER GROUP, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES**

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT  TOSECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

             **In	connection with the Annual report of Inland Fiber Group, LLC and Fiber Finance Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for	the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),	I, Thomas C. Ludlow, Chief Financial Officer of the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section	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/ Thomas C. Ludlow    |
|                    |
|                    |
| Thomas C. Ludlow        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| April 14, 2005          |

----
**NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT, STATEWIDE** 

**RACM Analysis Control Measure:**  School Bus Replacement **Description:** All model year 2002 and older buses will be replaced with model year 2007 diesel buses. **Documentation:**  Environmental Protection Agency, Clean School Bus USA: http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/index.htm  School Bus Transportation News, K- 12 Enrollment / Transportation Data, 2002 - 03 School Year: http://www.stno nline.com/stn/data_statistics/2002 - 03_schoolyear.htm **Methodology :**  All model year 2002 and older buses will be replaced with model year 2007 diesel buses. Both daily and annual benefits were calculated. Annual emissions were calculated using a two - seas on approach. It is assumed that school buses operate 180 days per year and cost $60,000 to replace. **Inputs/A ssumptions:**   58.10% of all school bus VMT (both daily and annual) can be attributed to model year 1992 - 2002 buses.  5.22% of all school bus VMT (both daily and annual) can be attributed to model year 1991 and older buses.  MOBILE6.2 was used to generate emission factors and VMT.  The expected life of a school bus is 10 years.  School buses operate 180 days per year.  Itcosts $60,000 to purchase one new sc hool bus.  There are 21,228 school buses in the state of New Jersey. Twenty percent (4,246) of those buses will be replaced. **Results:** Total Affected VMT: Daily Model Years 1992 - 2002 = **15,332** miles/day Model Years 1991 & Older = **1,372** miles/day Annual Model Years 1992 - 2002 = **5,140,062** miles/year Model Years 1991 & Older = **461,809** miles/year Statewide Benefits (Emission Reductions):

**Pollutant Ty**  **pe An**  **aly sis Year 2009** 

tons/day tons/year **VOC** 0.01 NA **NOx** 0.27 67.29 **PM2.5** NA 3.25 **SO2** NA NA *Statewide emis sion benefits include counties not included below**NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT, STATEWIDE** 

**RACM Analysis** Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits (tpd) in New Jersey:

**Benefits (Reductions)**  **Ozone Non -** **At tainment A**  **rea NY**  **- NJ**  **- CT**  **PA -**  **NJ -**  **MD -**  **DE VMT**  8,156 8,547 **VOC (Tons/Day )**  0.004 0.004 **NOx (Tons/Day** **)** 0.13 0.14 PM 2 .5 Analysis – Annual Benefits (tpy) in New Jersey:

**Benefits (Reductions)**  **PM 2.5**  **Non -** **At tainment A**  **rea NY**  **- NJ**  **- CT**  **PA -**  **NJ -**  **DE VMT**  3,190,968 2,410,904 **NOx (Tons/Year)** 38.33 28.96 **PM2.5 (Tons/Year)** 1.85 1.40 **SO 2**  **(Tons/Year)** NA NA Cost Benefit Results:

**Nona ttainment A**  **rea Ozone ($/tpd)**  **VOC NOx**  NY- NJ - CT $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 PA- NJ - MD - DE $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 Statewide $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 **Nonattainment A rea**  **PM2.5 ($/tpy )**  **NOx PM2.5**  **SO2** NY- NJ - CT $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA PA- NJ - DE $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA Statewide $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA
Exhibit
32.2









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 Transitional Report of Lion Capital Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the transitional period ended December 31,
2007(the “Report”), I, Timothy T. Page, Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






1) The
Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.







September
18, 2008




/s/Timothy T. Page,


Timothy
T. Page


Principal Financial
Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. David Hansen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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.





April 19, 2016





/s/ J. David HansenJ. David HansenPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 352
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

§ 352.508 Appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. ( a ) If an agency determines that an employee who has applied for reinstatement is not eligible for reinstatement, it shall notify the employee as promptly as possible of its decision, of the basis therefor, and of the employee's appeal rights under this subpart. The employee is entitled to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations. The agency shall comply with the provisions of § 1201.21 of this title.
( b ) If an agency fails to reinstate an employee within the time limits specified in § 352.507, the employee is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations.
( c ) If an employee considers that his reinstatement is not in accordance with the act and this subpart, he or she is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations.
[44 FR 48952, Aug. 21, 1979]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1616 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1616

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin Luther 
  King, Junior, National Historic Site for lands owned by the City of 
               Atlanta, Georgia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
Historic Site Land Exchange Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Public Law 96-438 established the Martin Luther King, 
        Junior, National Historic Site, and allows acquisition, by 
        donation only, of lands owned by the State.
            (2) The National Park Service owns a vacant lot that has no 
        historic significance. The City of Atlanta has expressed 
        interest in acquiring this property to encourage commercial 
        development along Edgewood Avenue.
            (3) The National Historic Site Visitor Center and Museum is 
        land-locked and has no emergency ingress or egress, making it 
        virtually impossible for firefighting equipment to reach.
            (4) The acquisition of city-owned property would enable the 
        National Park Service to establish easy street access to the 
        National Historic Site Visitor Center and Museum, and would 
        benefit the City by exchanging a piece of property that the 
        City could develop.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the exchange 
of certain lands within the Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
Historic Site for lands owned by the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.

    Section 2(b)(1) of the Act of October 10, 1980 (Public Law 96-428; 
94 Stat. 1839; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking the period 
and inserting ``or exchange.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00309

- CV

Victor Fonseca and Rig Cleaners,

LLC

v.

Peggy Sue Bishop, as Executrix of

Estate of Charles T. Blish, In the

Right of Rig Cleaners, LLC, and the

Estate of Charles T. Blish,

I ndividually §

§

§

§

§ From Probate Court No. 2

o f Tarrant County

(2013

- PR01571

- 2

- A )

October 16, 2014

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal i n this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
§ 531.410 Reconsideration of a negative determination. ( a ) When an agency head, or his or her designee, issues a negative determination the following procedures are established in accordance with section 5335(c) of title 5, United States Code for reconsideration of the negative determination: ( 1 ) An employee or an employee's personal representative may request reconsideration of a negative determination by filing, not more than 15 days after receiving notice of determination, a written response to the negative determination setting forth the reasons the agency shall reconsider the determination;
( 2 ) When an employee files a request for reconsideration, the agency shall establish an employee reconsideration file which shall contain all pertinent documents relating to the negative determination and the request for reconsideration, including copies of the following: ( i ) The written negative determination and the basis therefore;
( ii ) The employee's written request for reconsideration;
( iii ) The report of investigation when an investigation is made;
( iv ) The written summary or transcript of any personal presentation made; and
( v ) The agency's decision on the request for reconsideration. The file shall not contain any document that has not been made available to the employee or his or her personal representative with an opportunity to submit a written exception to any summary of the employee's personal presentation;
( 3 ) An employee in a duty status shall be granted a reasonable amount of official time to review the material relied upon to support the negative determination and to prepare a response to the determination; and
( 4 ) The agency shall provide the employee with a prompt written final decision.
( b ) The time limit to request a reconsideration may be extended when the employee shows he or she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it, or that the employee was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from requesting reconsideration within the time limit.
( c ) An agency may disallow as an employee's personal representative an individual whose activities as a representative would cause a conflict of interest of position, an employee whose release from his or her official duties and responsibilities would give rise to unreasonable costs to the Government, or an employee whose priority work assignment precludes his or her release from official duties and responsibilities. Section 7114 of title 5, United States Code, and the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement govern representation for employees in an exclusive bargaining unit.
( d ) When a negative determination is sustained after reconsideration, an employee shall be informed in writing of the reasons for the decision and of his or her right to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. However, for an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement a reconsideration decision that sustains a negative determination is only reviewable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
[46 FR 2319, Jan. 9, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 45389, Oct. 31, 1985]
§ 4601.102 Designation of DHS components as separate agencies. ( a ) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203(a), DHS designates each of the following components as a separate agency for purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d); for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the establishment of procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment; for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the designation of officials; and for the purposes of the regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing: ( 1 ) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
( 2 ) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
( 3 ) Transportation Security Administration;
( 4 ) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
( 5 ) U.S. Coast Guard;
( 6 ) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
( 7 ) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
( 8 ) U.S. Secret Service.
( b ) ( 1 ) DHS will treat employees of DHS components not designated as separate agencies in paragraph (a) of this section, including employees of the Office of the Secretary, as employees of the remainder of DHS. For purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d); for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the establishment of procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment; for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the designation of officials; and for purposes of the regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing, DHS will treat the remainder of DHS as a single agency that is separate from the components designated as separate agencies in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) For the limited purposes of establishing procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and designating officials pursuant to § 4601.103(c) of this part, DHS will treat the DHS Office of Inspector General as a separate agency.
( c ) An employee on detail from his or her employing agency to another agency for a period in excess of 30 calendar days is subject to the supplemental regulations and instructions of the agency to which he is detailed rather than his or her employing agency.
To whom it my concern

I am a local resident of Ketchikan, Alaska since August 1975. I have been in the aviation industry for the past 20 years. I have worked for multiple airlines in Southeast Alaska that have the responsibility of transferring, dispatching, loading, and unloading U.S. mail to outlaying communities . I have been a part in every step of the operation from picking up the mail from the post office, transferring appropriate flight loads to multiple aircraft, flying the mail to remote areas, and finally the exchange of mail with outlaying agents. There are many variables that make this proc ess difficult at times. But none more so than the Adverse weather in Southeast Alaska. I have seen mail sit on the hanger floors for days sometime s weeks when the weather does not allow certain airlines to operate safely under visual flight rules. Mail is sometimes stored in carts covered with tarps in hopes that it will not get wet or destroyed while waiting for a break in the weather to be loaded for its destination. This process can be repeated multiple times due to weather cancelations. Another point I would like to make is that in the busy tourist season most of the seaplane companies in Ketchikan shift their priorities to providing tours ins tead of transferring mail and local passengers. Mail quickly becomes the lowest priority when huge profits can be made with sightseeing flights. This leaves a small window of opportunity to get mail where it needs to go in a timely manner. Island Air Exp ress has brought a new dimension of flying to SE Alaska. Based in Klawock, AK and with an office in Ketchikan, AK Island Air Express has become the safest and most reliable mode of transportation to and from Prince of Whales Island. The company is loca l l y owned and is employed by a team of locals that take pride in their work. The aircraft are some of the most advanced in the industry and along with the pilots that fly them have the ability to fly day or night, under VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (i nstrument fligh t rules). The Cessna Caravan has a large usefu l load which translates into lots of room for passengers and freight, including mail! I am a Pilot and am proud to work for Island Air Express. I am confident that The IAX team can professional ly manage and dispatch the U.S Mail. Our intentions are only to provide the absolute best service to the communities we fly too and its members . The USPS would benefit in both cost reduction and timely reliable transfer of U.S Mail. Thank you for your co nsideration.

Carl A. Zink

3443 Baranof Ave Ketchikan, AK 99901