alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
the ourth day o January, two thousand and ive

An Act

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the

relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF INDIAN

OCEAN TSUNAMI VICTIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution

described in subsection (b) made in January 2005 as if such contribution was made on December 31, 2004, and not in January

2005.

(b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is described in

this subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made

for the relief of victims in areas affected by the December 26,

2004, Indian Ocean tsunami for which a charitable contribution

deduction is allowable under section 170 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
1 Draft Charge to External Reviewers for the IRIS Toxicological Review of Urea

June 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is s eeking an external peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health assess ment of urea that will appear on the Agency’s online database, the Integrated Risk Information Sy stem (IRIS). IRIS is prepared and maintained by the EPA’s National Center for Environ mental Assessment (NCEA) within the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Currentl y an IRIS assessment of urea does not
exist on the database.

The current draft health assessment includes an eva luation of the available data and a
determination that the data are insufficient for th e derivation of toxicity values. A cancer descriptor for urea is included. Below is a set of charge questions that address scientific issues in the assessment of urea. Please provide detailed ex planations for responses to the charge questions. Please consider the accuracy, objectivity, and tran sparency of EPA’s analysis and conclusions in your review.

General Charge Questions: 1. Is the Toxicological Review logical, clear and c oncise? Has EPA clearly synthesized the
scientific evidence for noncancer and cancer hazard ?

2. Please identify any additional studies that shou ld be considered in the assessment of the
noncancer and cancer health effects of urea.

Chemical-Specific Charge Questions: (A) Oral reference dose (RfD) for urea
1. An RfD for urea was not derived. Is the rationa le for not deriving an RfD scientifically justified and clearly described? Please identify a nd provide the rationale for any studies that should be selected as the principal study and any e ndpoint that should be considered as a critical
effect.

(B) Inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for ur ea 1. An RfC for urea was not derived. Is the rationa le for not deriving an RfC scientifically justified and clearly described? Please identify a nd provide the rationale for any studies that should be selected as the principal study and any e ndpoint that should be considered as a critical
effect?

(C) Carcinogenicity of urea
1. Under EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment(www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.htm), the Agency concluded that there is inadequate information to access the carcinogenic potential of urea. Is the choice of cancer descriptor scie ntifically justified and clearly described?

2. EPA did not derive a quantitative estimate of th e carcinogenic potential of urea. Do the data support an estimation of a cancer slope factor for urea? If a quantitative estimate is proposed, please identify the data set and a description of t he method that should be used.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glendon Chedick, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 346]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 12, 1998 *(People v Chedick,*246 AD2d 551), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 15, 1995.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, J. Keith Kitchen, Chief Accounting Officer of Pumatech, Inc. (the Company), do
hereby 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:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: December 15, 2003



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ J. KEITH KITCHEN                                                                      
|                                                                                          
|J. Keith Kitchen Vice
President of Finance and Administration and Chief Accounting Officer
#### § 1508.965 Legal proceedings.

*Legal proceedings* means any criminal proceeding or any civil judicial proceeding, including a proceeding under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812), to which the Federal Government or a State or local government or quasi-governmental authority is a party. The term also includes appeals from those proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,264
<PP&E>                                           1,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,015
<SALES>                                         11,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,508
<CGS>                                            7,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,017)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (72)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (293)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)
        

</TABLE>
#### The First National Bank of Aurora, Respondent, v. Precision Castings Company, Inc., *Appellant*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concur.
### §4724. Intergovernmental cooperation in recruiting and examining activities; potential employees, certification; payments for costs; credits to appropriation or fund for payment of expenses

(a) The Office may join, on a shared-costs basis, with State and local governments in cooperative recruiting and examining activities under such procedures and regulations as may jointly be agreed upon.

(b) The Office also may, on the written request of a State or local government and under such procedures as may be jointly agreed upon, certify to such governments from appropriate Federal registers the names of potential employees. The State or local government making the request shall pay the Office for the costs, as determined by the Office, of performing the service, and such payments shall be credited to the appropriation or fund from which the expenses were or are to be paid.

(Pub. L. 91–648, title II, §204, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1914; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Office", meaning Office of Personnel Management, substituted in text for "Commission", meaning Civil Service Commission, pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1978, §102, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783, set out under section 1101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which transferred functions vested by statute in Civil Service Commission and Chairman thereof to Director of Office of Personnel Management (except as otherwise specified), effective Jan. 1, 1979, as provided by section 1–102 of Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, set out under section 1101 of Title 5.
#### Felix Lilienthal & Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Milton J. Greenebaum et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed shall he fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0286

_____________________________

AMOS DICKEY III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Leon County.

Jason L. Jones, Judge.

November 9, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert “Charlie” Lee,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
### §3537b. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–65, §11(b)(1), Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 701

Section, Pub. L. 89–174, §13, as added Pub. L. 101–235, title I, §112, Dec. 15, 1989, 103 Stat. 2016; amended Pub. L. 102–550, title IX, §926, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3885, related to registration of and reports by persons spending money to influence Department decisions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided, see section 24 of Pub. L. 104–65, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1601 of Title 2, The Congress.
### §4451. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 91–606, title II, §231, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 92–385, §6, Aug. 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 559, which related to small business disaster loans, was transferred to section 636a of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and subsequently repealed.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ORLANDO WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER; et al.,

Defendants.                                                          /

No. C 08-174 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL  

On September 23, 2008, mail was sent to plaintiff at the county jail address he

provided to the court and was returned undelivered on September 29, 2008, marked as :NIC,”

which usually stands for an inmate being “not in custody.”  More than sixty days have passed

since the mail was returned to the court undelivered.  Plaintiff has failed to comply with

Local Rule 3-11(a) which requires that a party proceeding pro se must "promptly file with the

Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new

address" when his address changes.  Local Rule 3-11(b) allows the court to dismiss a

complaint without prejudice when mail directed to a pro se party is returned as not

deliverable and the pro se party fails to send a current address within sixty days of the return

of the undelivered mail.  This action is dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to

keep the court informed of his address in compliance with Local Rule 3-11(a).  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 ______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00174-MHP   Document 8   Filed 04/16/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T22:00:04-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Editorial Note on Part 707
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 707.12 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
( b ) *Maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;
( c ) *Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or photograph;
( d ) *System of records* mean a group of any records under the control of DFC from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
( e ) *Statistical record* means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by 13 U.S.C. 8;
( f ) *Routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GREGORY PAUL SCHAIM, ) DOC #H44490, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1030 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed July 12, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Karen M. Kinney, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelly E. O’Neill, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Jean C. Josephson, Respondent, v Michael Cohen et al., Defendants, and Denah Harris, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages predicated, *inter alia,*upon medical malpractice, defendant Denah Harris appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 1, 1976, which denied her motion to compel plaintiff to respond to her interrogatories. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although this complaint is couched in terms of breach of contract, we agree with Special Term that it is, in essence, one involving medical malpractice. As such, it falls within the express language of CPLR 3130, which exempts, *inter alia,*personal injury actions founded in negligence from those actions in which interrogatories are permitted (see *Allen v Minskoff,*46 AD2d 918, affd 38 NY2d 506). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Victor Costello, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of the crime of criminal contempt of court.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Virginius J. Mayo v. John J. Hanley, Warden, etc.

Motion granted; bail fixed at $2,500. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
#### Henry Stoll v. Louis Bustanoby, Inc.

Motion for stay pending appeal granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 241 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.241

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
         for the relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami.

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

SECTION 1. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH 
              CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI VICTIMS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution described 
in subsection (b) made in January 2005 as if such contribution was made 
on December 31, 2004, and not in January 2005.
    (b) Contribution Described.--A contribution is described in this 
subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made for the 
relief of victims in areas affected by the December 26, 2004, Indian 
Ocean tsunami for which a charitable contribution deduction is 
allowable under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
COMMITTEES: LEONARD L. BOSWELL AGRICULTURE 3rd DISTRICT, IOWA CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL FARM COMMODITIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT OFFICES: SUBCOMMITT'EE ON LIVESTOCK, 1427 LONGWORTH HOUSE**O~~ICE** BUILDING DAIRY AND POULTRY WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

# (!Congress oftbe WnftdJ {etates

(202) 225-3806 TRANSPORTATION AND 300 EAST LOCUST STREET

### ~ouse 

# ofl\epresentatibes INFRASTRUCTURE SUITE 320 SUBCOMMITTEE ON H,GHWAYS AND TRANSIT DES MOINES, IA 50309

(515)282-1909**.a~bington.ll(IC** 

### 20515-1503 SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION TOLL FREE IOWA NUMBER SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROAOS, PIPELINES 1-888-432-1984 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS hltp:/Iboswell.house.gov May 12,2010

TheHonorable Ray LaHood Secretary United StatesDepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear

### Mr. Secretary: Congratulations on the formation of the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. We share a deep interest, not only regarding the competitiveness ofour nation's aviation industry, but also in how this critically important piece ofour economy addresses the challenges it faces in the not-so-distant future, from the transformation to a new satellite-based navigation system to global competition to aviation's impact on the environment.

Mr. Secretary, given these critical issues facing the aviation community, I am hopeful that the Advisory Committee membership will contain the best and brightest minds the industry has to offer. To that end, I strongly recommend my fellow Iowan, Mr. Clayton Jones, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer ofRockwell Collins, Inc. for a seat on the Advisory Committee. Given Rockwell Collins' civil aviation, defense and aviation repair business holdings and Mr. Jones considerable knowledge of, and experience in, the aviation industry I believe he would bring a detailed understanding ofmany ofthe complex issues under the Advisory Committee'spurview.

As you know, the future ofaviation is a critically important issue for my home state ofIowa and the nation. Thanks to your leadership and the development ofthe Future ofAviation Advisory Committee, I
am hopeful that the future is a bright one and believe that 

### Mr. Jones' participation on the committee will prove highlyvaluable.

Iwish you great success in this effortand look forward toreviewingtheAdvisory Committee'sfindings. Sincerely,

# ~~~ Leonard Bo'swell Member ofCongress

LB:rm

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

## S10-100517-005
Alkylphenols and Ethoxy lates Research Council Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Preven tion and Toxics (OPPT)

September 14, 2012

10:00 – 11:00 am EDT

Draft Agenda

1.0 Introductions

2.0 APERC Comments on 4-t-Octylphe no1, Discussion and Questions

3.0 Rubber Manufacturers Associatio n Comments on 4-t-Octylphenol, Discussion and Questions

4.0 Risk Assessment Proc ess for 4-t-Octylphenol

5.0 Next Steps and Follow Up Actions

6.0 Adjourn
§ 17.7 Waiver precluded. ( a ) Waiver of an overpayment cannot be granted when: ( 1 ) The overpayment was obtained by fraud; or
( 2 ) The overpayment was made to an estate.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### Jay L. Rothschild, Appellant, v Yolande B. Fielding et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for malicious interference with an attorney’s retainer agreement (the third cause of action), plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 23, 1976, which dismissed the third cause of action upon the grant of defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the said cause for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff-appellant died prior to the submission of this appeal and, on September 28, 1976, letters testamentary were granted to Harriet C. Rothschild, Malcolm V. Rothschild and Arthur N. Goldzweig. By letter dated February 3, 1977 counsel for defendants informed this court that he does not object to the substitution of the said executors as plaintiffs. Therefore, on the court’s own motion, the said executors of the estate of Jay Leo Rothschild, deceased, are hereby substituted as parties appellant for the said Jay Leo Rothschild and the caption is amended accordingly. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The allegations comprising the third cause of action are legally insufficient and the said cause of action was properly dismissed (see *Ryan v Brooklyn Eye & Ear Hosp.,*46 AD2d 87; *Oshlag v Basile,*34 AD2d 627). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.