alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M. P. No. 77-195.

#### The Coachman, Inc. *v.*John H. Norberg, *Tax Administrator.*

*Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd., Francis J. Boyle,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Allen P. Rubine,*Asst. Attorney General, *Perry Shatkin,*Chief Legal Officer, Taxation, for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1060 

Expressing support for starting and growing families through in vitro 

fertilization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2024 

Mrs. CAMMACK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for starting and growing families through 

in vitro fertilization. 

Whereas in vitro fertilization (hereinafter ‘‘IVF’’) is a type of 

assisted reproductive technology developed and used for 

infertility treatment in adult women; 

Whereas the first successful birth of a child through the IVF 

process occurred in 1978, and since that time millions of 

children have been conceived and born using IVF worldwide; 

Whereas, according to a 2015 report from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter ‘‘CDC’’), 

more than 1,000,000 children have been born in the 

United States between 1987 and 2015 through the use 

of assisted reproductive technologies, including IVF; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1060 IH 

Whereas, according to the CDC, in the United States— 

(1) about 1 in 5 women with no prior births are unable to get pregnant after 1 year of trying to conceive a 

child, leading to a diagnosis of infertility; 

(2) about 1 in 4 women experiencing infertility have 

difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to term; and 

(3) in 2021, more than 97,000 children were born 

using assisted reproductive technologies, including IVF: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) affirms the desire of parents trying to con3 ceive a child to start or grow a family; 

4 (2) expresses sympathy for the millions of par5 ents experiencing infertility issues as they strive to 

6 start or grow a family, and recognizes the immense 

7 physical, emotional, and psychological toll of pur8 suing medical assistance for infertility, including in 

9 vitro fertilization; 

10 (3) cherishes the millions of children born 

11 through the use of medical assistance to overcome 

12 infertility, including through in vitro fertilization; 

13 (4) recognizes that medical assistance for infer14 tility, including in vitro fertilization, is and remains 

15 legal in all 50 States and Territories; 

16 (5) affirms that laws enacted by Congress 

17 should promote the sanctity of human life and supVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:17 Mar 07, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1060.IH HR1060

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1060 IH 

1 port the development and growth of families in the 

2 United States; 

3 (6) encourages further clinical research to im4 prove outcomes for parents seeking medical assist5 ance to overcome infertility as they strive to start or 

6 grow a family; and 

7 (7) supports State legislative and regulatory ac8 tions to establish health, safety, and ethical stand9 ards for medical facilities offering assisted reproduc10 tive technologies, including in vitro fertilization. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129132 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129132 COA: 260780 Gratiot CC: 04-004769-FH WALLACE EUGENE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
#### Henry E. C. Peterson *v.*Charles L. Currier.

*Filed at Ottawa November 9, 1896.*

Appeals and *errors—when judgment of Appellate Court is conclusive.*In suits at law questions of fact are conclusively settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court, and where no questions of law are preserved by objections to rulings on evidence or upon propositions of law submitted, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Peterson*v. *Currier,*62 Ill. App. 163, affirmed.

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.

Robert A. Childs, and Charles Hudson, for appellant.

L. S. Hodges, for appellee,

*529Mr. Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellant, Peterson, against appellee, Currier, on a contract which reads as follows:

> “Chicago, Ill., *September 5, 1889.*

> “Received of H. E. C. Peterson the sum of $5000, to be invested in bonds issued by the Chicago and Iowa Coal Company at par, said bonds being a series of sixty, of the amount of $500 each, and are secured by a mortgage on all the property of said company, being first lien, and valued at two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), which bonds I agree to purchase of said Peterson on thirty days’ notice, at par, with all accumulated or accrued interest unpaid, if any. Said bonds run ten years at seven per cent semi-annual interest, to pay which a sinking fund of eight cents per ton is to be paid to the trustee (the Illinois Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago). Said bonds date September 1, ' Charles L. Currier.”

The declaration contained one special count on the contract and the common counts, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue. The parties, by agreement, waived a jury, and a trial was had before the court, resulting in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, where the judgment was affirmed.

No objection was made to the ruling of the circuit court on the admission or exclusion of evidence, and no written propositions were submitted to be held as law by the court in the decision of the case. The judgment of the circuit court having been affirmed by the Appellate Court, and no propositions of law having been submitted and no question raised in regard to the ruling of the court on questions of evidence, under the repeated rulings of this court the record presents no questions of law for our decision. *Barber*v. *Hawley,*116 Ill. 91; *McDonald*v. *Allen,*128 id. 521; *Hall*v. *Cox,*144 id. 532; *Bradish*v. *Yocum,*130 id. 386; *Hawes*v. *Sternheim,*156 id. 341.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed,*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1107 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1107

Expressing the sense of Congress that Israel must be in full support of 
 any negotiation or agreement relating to the Israeli-Hamas conflict, 
 including a two-state solution or similar long-term plan relating to 
            Israel and Palestinians for it to move forward.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2024

 Mr. D'Esposito submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that Israel must be in full support of 
 any negotiation or agreement relating to the Israeli-Hamas conflict, 
 including a two-state solution or similar long-term plan relating to 
            Israel and Palestinians for it to move forward.

Whereas Israel is a strong and critical ally to the United States in the Middle 
        East;
Whereas Hamas committed a brutal and horrific attack against Israel on October 
        7, 2023;
Whereas approximately 1,200 people were murdered by Hamas during the October 7th 
        attack from more than 25 Nations, including more than 30 United States 
        citizens;
Whereas Hamas kidnaped over 240 hostages, some of which were killed in Gaza, 
        while 134 individuals, including up to 5 Americans, continue to be 
        unlawfully detained in Gaza;
Whereas Hamas promises to repeat October 7-style massacres ``again and again,'' 
        promising ``there will be a second, a third, a fourth'' time ``until 
        Israel is annihilated'';
Whereas at least 15,000 rockets, mortars, drones, and other projectiles have 
        been fired at Israel on all fronts to deliberately attack Israeli 
        civilians and civilian population centers for the ostensible purpose of 
        spreading terror among the civilian population;
Whereas Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas; and
Whereas the House of Representatives has a long history of supporting Israel and 
        must continue this steadfast support: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) any resolution of the Israeli-Hamas conflict should 
        take place only with the full cooperation and approval of 
        Israel at each step of the process;
            (2) any two-state solution or similar long-term plan 
        relating to Israel and Palestinians should be sought only with 
        the full cooperation and approval of Israel at each step of the 
        process; and
            (3) the United States should continue to support Israel and 
        should not attempt to force Israel to take any course of action 
        that is against its best interests.
                                 <all>
```
**DIAPULSE
      CORPORATION OF AMERICA**


**FORM
      10-QSB**


**For
      the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 2007**




**Exhibit
      32**





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 Quarterly Report of Diapulse Corporation of America, Inc.
      (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”),
      the undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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.




By: /s/
              David Mr. Ross
            
            
            November 14, 2007David
                M. RossChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Diapulse Corporation of America and will be retained by Diapulse Corporation
      of
      America and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
(November 19, 1963)

#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Kemikalija, Import-Export, Respondent, and Associated Metals & Minerals Corporation, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellant appeals from an order confirming an award in arbitration and from the judgment entered on the award. Petitioner, a Yugoslav corporation, initiated the arbitration to collect a .bill for goods sold and delivered to appellant. There was no dispute as to petitioner’s claim. Appellant sought to justify its failure to pay by a claim that petitioner had breached a contract with appellant giving appellant certain exclusive sales rights. After litigating the question of whether this counterclaim, arising out of another contract and not of itself the subject of an agreement to arbitrate, might be asserted in the arbitration proceedings, the parties finally came to agreement that it could. Appellant thereupon applied to the arbitrators to take depositions of certain witnesses in Yugoslavia and in Texas. The arbitrators ruled that before they would allow the issuance of commissions to take such depositions, appellant would have to submit some prima facie proof of the existence of such a contract. The arbitrators ruled that the evidence adduced to comply with this ruling was insufficient.

Appellant charges the arbitrators with misconduct. The misconduct charged is the refusal to hear pertinent testimony (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 3). *869There was no refusal. The arbitrators took all of the testimony offered by respondent. The only tenable contention of the appellant is that the refusal to allow the depositions to issue constituted a failure to hear pertinent and material testimony. The validity of the contention would depend on whether appellant made a sufficient showing to warrant the taking of the depositions. Until it did so, the materiality and relevance of the proposed testimony would not be established. Appellant contends that the decision of this question is for the court rather than the arbitrators. That is not a precise statement. The situation is the same as regards the proffer of any evidence. The question is in the first instance for the arbitrators and only on a clear showing that the evidence is material does the exclusion become reviewable by the court *(Matter of John Post Constr. Corp. [Good Rumor Corp.], 9*Misc 2d 392, affd. 6 A D 2d 684). Here, there was no such showing.

The order and judgment should be affirmed.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
From: Garth Tayler [mailto:gtayler@brick.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:09 PM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Cc: 'Susan Miller' <SMiller@bia.org>; Terry Schimmel <btschimmel@gmail.com> 

Subject: Emailing: Green Brick HgTesting Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 

2015_REV150512

Gabrielle

Herewith information on our materials you requested.

The query you had on line 16: BHP....DTPMix ; the correct entry is: BHP....BHPMix.

Thanks

Dr. Garth Tayler

Technical Director

Acme Brick Company

Fort Worth, Texas. 

(817) 907 1208 (cell)

(817) 8708354 (office)

<< Green Brick HgTesting Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 2015_REV150512.xlsx>>
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 Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. Bridges Executive
Vice-President


Date MAY 15, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1364 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1364

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II 
of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and 
                    windfall elimination provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2024

 Ms. Spanberger (for herself and Mr. Landsman) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II 
of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and 
                    windfall elimination provisions.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 
82) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by Representative Spanberger and an opponent or 
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of H.R. 82.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Murphy, Appellant, v. Valeray Real Estate Company, Inc., Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Perkiomen Transfer, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order, entered January 21, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an order revoking his preference under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and the motion granted. A preference once granted should not be revoked unless facts elicited at a pretrial conference satisfactorily show that the preference should not be continued and a record is made at the conference of the facts upon which the Justice relied in revoking the preference. There is no such record before us in this case. *{Lee*v. *Lehrer,*3 A D 2d 702.) In the circumstances it was an unwise exercise of discretion to deny the motion for reconsideration. *{Bulahian*v. *City of New York,*19 A D 2d 522.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNITED STATES D EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Chandler Air Service, COMPLAINANT City of Chandler, 

### AZ RESPONDENT. FAA Docket No. 16-13-05

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federa l Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally

- Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B , the date by which the Director' s Determination will be issued 

### in this matter is hereby extended to September 11 , 20 1 5. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in thi s case .

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis 

## A"'s 

# r-1 1
. o 

## t 

# r j Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CE RTIFY that on August



# ~ , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice of Extension of Time to September 11 , 2015 , for FAA Docket 16-13-08 addressed to: Timothy McCulloch Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP 2375 

### East Camelback Road, Suite 750 Phoenix, AZ 85016 W. Eric Pilsk Daniel S. Reimer Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell , LLP l 0 I Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-l00 FAA Airports District Office, Phoenix , AZ

Jaudi a Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S 10-KSB AS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         535,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,985,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,644
<INVENTORY>                                    338,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,821,104
<PP&E>                                       2,938,650
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,020,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,890,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,128,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       396,408
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,039,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,890,396
<SALES>                                     16,675,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,675,565
<CGS>                                        9,341,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,083,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               413,223
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (305,671)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,714,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,714,084)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,714,084)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.21)


</TABLE>
M. P. No. 77-225.

#### James E. MacDonald, Jr. *et al. v.*Conflict of Interest Commission of Rhode Island *et al.*

*Edwards & Angelí, John H. Blish, Robert G. Flanders, Jr.,*for petitioners.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Allen P. Rubine,*Asst. Attorney General, *Joseph F. Dugan,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice.