alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6q. Special procedures to encourage and facilitate bona fide hedging by agricultural producers

#### (a) Authority

The Commission shall consider issuing rules or orders which—

(1) prescribe procedures under which each contract market is to provide for orderly delivery, including temporary storage costs, of any agricultural commodity enumerated in section 1a(9) of this title which is the subject of a contract for purchase or sale for future delivery;

(2) increase the ease with which domestic agricultural producers may participate in contract markets, including by addressing cost and margin requirements, so as to better enable the producers to hedge price risk associated with their production;

(3) provide flexibility in the minimum quantities of such agricultural commodities that may be the subject of a contract for purchase or sale for future delivery that is traded on a contract market, to better allow domestic agricultural producers to hedge such price risk; and

(4) encourage contract markets to provide information and otherwise facilitate the participation of domestic agricultural producers in contract markets.

#### (b) Report

Within 1 year after December 21, 2000, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report on the steps it has taken to implement this section and on the activities of contract markets pursuant to this section.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §4q, formerly §4p, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §121], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–404; renumbered §4q, Pub. L. 110–234, title XIII, §13105(d), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1434, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIII, §13105(d), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2196; Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §721(e)(3), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1671.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 both renumbered this section as section 4q of act Sept. 21, 1922. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234.

Section was formerly classified to section 6o–1 of this title.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "section 1a(9)" for "section 1a(4)".

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 1a of this title.
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:8
#### LABINSKS v. HOLST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Agency—Evidence—Commissions.

A servant is not entitled to commissions for using Ms influence with Ms employer to induce the latter to enter into a contract with defendant, unless the fact that the servant has a personal interest in the contract is disclosed to the employer.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan.

Action by David W. Labinsks against Christ Holst. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Arthur G. Frank, for appellant.

David W. Roclcman, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff was.employed by one Greenstein as a bookkeeper, and he brought this action against the defendant to recover $100 for commissions which he claims to have earned by having induced his employer, Greenstein, to enter into two contracts with the defendant. The court below found in his favor, and the defendant appeals.

A reversal of the judgment is asked on several grounds, but only one need be considered. The appellant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to the commissions for the reason that said commissions would be in derogation of his employer’s interest. This contention is supported by abundant authority. The plaintiff had no right, while in the employment of Greenstein, to use his influence to induce his employer to make any contract in which the plaintiff had *992a personal interest, without first fully disclosing the fact of such interest to his employer (Spyer v. Fisher, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 93; Cassard v. Hinman, 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 8); and the evidence that the plaintiff’s employer had knowledge of such personal interest of the plaintiff must be clear and convincing. Greenstein denied positively that he had such knowledge. If the commissions are due and payable at all, Greenstein would seem to be entitled to them, and not the plaintiff. Howe v. Savory, 49 Barb. 403, affirmed 51 N. Y. 631.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide event. All concur.
EXHIBIT 21
                       ANDREW CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        List of Significant Subsidiaries

Significant subsidiaries of the registrant, all of which are wholly-owned unless
otherwise indicated, are as follows:

Name of                                                      Jurisdiction
Subsidiary                                                   of Incorporation

Andrew AG....................................................Switzerland
Andrew Canada Inc............................................Canada
Andrew Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd......................Australia
Andrew Data Corporation......................................State of Delaware
Andrew do Brazil, Limitada...................................Brazil
      (70% owned)
Andrew Espana, S.A...........................................Spain
Andrew GmbH..................................................Germany
Andrew International Corporation.............................State of Illinois
Andrew KMW Systems Inc.......................................State of Delaware
Andrew Kommunikationssysteme AG..............................Switzerland
Andrew Corporation (Mexico), S.A. de C.V.....................Mexico
Andrew NPG Ltd...............................................United Kingdom
Andrew Satcom Systems........................................South Africa
      (80% owned)
Andrew SciComm Inc...........................................State of Texas
Andrew S.A.R.L...............................................France
Andrew S.R.L.................................................Italy
Andrew Soracaba, Brazil......................................Brazil
      (51% owned)
Andrew Systems Inc...........................................State of Delaware
Andrew VSAT Systems Inc......................................State of California
      (90% owned)
### §2228. Emergency subsistence for employees

The Department of Agriculture is authorized to furnish subsistence to employees without consideration as, or deduction from, the compensation of such employees where warranted by emergency condition connected with the work under such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe.

(Aug. 3, 1956, ch. 950, §5, 70 Stat. 1033.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 541d of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of CB Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dean K. Hirata,
Senior Vice President and Chief 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ DEAN K. HIRATA
---------------------------------------------------------
   Dean K. Hirata
   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 10, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to CB Bancshares, Inc. and will be
retained by CB Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 683 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement to provide 

nursing home care to certain veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement to provide nursing home care to certain veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

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 ‘‘Keeping Our Commit5 ment to Disabled Veterans Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 683 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NURS2 ING HOME CARE TO CERTAIN VETERANS 

3 WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES. 

4 Section 1710A(d) of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2017’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘December 31, 2018’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §6814. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

#### (b) Administrative expenses

Funds appropriated under subsection (a) may not be used for the payment of the expenses or expenditures of the PromoFlor Council in administering a provision of an order.

(Pub. L. 103–190, §15, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2289.)
#### 1314.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

The designee authorized to make the determinations prescribed in FAR 14.407-3(a), (b), (c) and (d) is set forth in CAM 1301.70. Concurrence of Procurement Counsel shall be obtained before issuance of any determination under this section.
#### 1211.204 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
EXHIBIT
32.1





Section
1350 Certification


By
Principal Executive Officer





I, Daniel
Greenberg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report
on Form 10-Q of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended
August 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.





Date:  October
      6, 2010/s/ Daniel GreenbergDaniel
      GreenbergChief
      Executive Officer
#### 1301.304 Agency control and compliance procedures.

Operating unit counsel shall limit issuance of directives that restrain the flexibilities found in the FAR.
#### Richard H. Birch et al., Appellants, v. Clara McNall, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The complaint herein sought specific performance of a written contract in which plaintiffs agreed to purchase and defendant agreed to sell certain realty. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. It is not disputed that the writing was signed by all three parties but the complaint was dismissed upon a holding by Special Term that the contract was never “delivered” by defendant to plaintiffs after execution by the former. A binding contract, however, may be made without a physical delivery of the instrument evidencing the contract. “ Whether certain acts, words and circumstances constitute a delivery of an agreement is a question of intent. '* * * Any evidence that shows that the parties to a written instrument intend that the same should be operative and binding upon them is sufficient in an action to enforce its provisions.” *(Sarasohn*v. *Kamaiky,*193 N. Y. 203, 214; see, also, *Dietz*v. *Farish,*79 N. Y. 520, 525; 1A Corbin, Contracts, § 244, p. 399; 9 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 61.) Defendant’s agent states in her affidavit that defendant executed the contract as a matter of convenience. One of the plaintiffs, however, swears that the agent informed her that defendant had executed the contract — “ *‘*The house is yours and our lawyer will send [your lawyer] a copy of the contract.’ ” These and other facts upon the subject of delivery set forth in the affidavit *851present a factual issue that requires a trial. (Appeal from judgment and order of Monroe Special Term dismissing the complaint. The order grants motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, canceling the *Us pendens*and directs judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and Noonan, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 158 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 158

  Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Secretary of 
   Defense and Secretary of State to transmit, respectively, certain 
 documents to the House of Representatives relating to congressionally 
 appropriated funds to the nation of Ukraine from January 20, 2021 to 
                           February 24, 2023.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2023

  Ms. Greene of Georgia (for herself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Massie, Mr. 
Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Roy, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Gosar, and 
Mrs. Miller of Illinois) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Secretary of 
   Defense and Secretary of State to transmit, respectively, certain 
 documents to the House of Representatives relating to congressionally 
 appropriated funds to the nation of Ukraine from January 20, 2021 to 
                           February 24, 2023.

    Resolved, That the President is requested, and the Secretary of 
Defense and Secretary of State are directed, to transmit, respectively, 
to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date 
of the adoption of this resolution, copies of all documents, charts, or 
tables, including notes from meetings, audio recordings, records 
(including telephone and email records), correspondence, and other 
communications, and any financial statements detailing purchases, 
recipients, and government expenditures to the extent that any such one 
or more items are within the possession of the President or Secretaries 
aforementioned, respectively, and refer or relate to congressionally 
appropriated funds directed to the nation of Ukraine--whether in regard 
to military, civilian, or financial aid--between January 20, 2021 to 
February 24, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**HCC INDUSTRIES INC.**

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXEDCHARGES**

**(in thousands)**

 
|                                                 |   | **For The  Year Ended** |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                                 |   | **March 30,  2002**     |   | **March 31,  2001** |   | **April 1,  2000** |   |
| Earnings:                                            |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                 |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings (loss) before taxes and  extraordinary item |   | $                       | 4,891  |   | $ | 8,737 |   | $ | (3,859 | ) |
| Add:   Fixed charges(1)                         |   | 9,847                   |   | 10,717 |   | 11,333 |   |
|                                                 |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                 |   | $                       | 14,738 |   | $ | 19,454 |   | $ | 7,474 |   |
| Fixed Charges: (1)                                   |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                 |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                     |   | $                       | 9,847  |   | $ | 10,717 |   | $ | 11,333 |   |
|                                                 |   |                    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                   |   | 1.5                     |   | 1.8 |   | — | (2) |

 

----

(1)                                  Theratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by adding earnings beforeincome taxes and extraordinary item to fixed charges and dividing by fixedcharges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and amortization of debtissuance costs.

 

(2)                                  TheCompany’s earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the fiscal yearended April 1, 2000.  The dollar amountof the deficiency was $3,859,000.

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)

                        TXU GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
                                   (Unaudited)

                                                             Twelve Months Ended
                                                                June 30, 2002
                                                             -------------------
                                                             Millions of Dollars

Operating revenues .........................................         $ 878
                                                                     -----

 Operating expenses
    Gas purchased for resale ...............................           433
    Operation and maintenance ..............................           261
    Depreciation and other amortization ....................            66
    Goodwill amortization ..................................             5
    Taxes other than income ................................            77
                                                                     -----
        Total operating expenses ...........................           842
                                                                     -----

Operating income ...........................................            36

Other income ...............................................            32

Other deductions ...........................................             5

Interest income ............................................             5

Interest expense and other charges .........................            65
                                                                     -----

Income from continuing operations before income taxes ......             3

Income tax expense .........................................             2
                                                                     -----

Income from continuing operations ..........................             1

Income from discontinued operations, net of tax ............            25
                                                                     -----

Net income .................................................            26

Preferred stock dividends ..................................             4
                                                                     -----

Net income applicable to common stock ......................         $  22
                                                                     =====
#### WILLIAMS v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Street Railroads—Collision with Team—Contributory Negligence.

Recovery for collision of a street car with a team is barred by contributory negligence, the testimony showing that the driver saw or could have seen, the car coming, in ample time to avoid a collision, but kept on and drove directly in front of it, when it was but 15 or 20 feet away, and rapidly approaching.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Street Railroads, §§ 213-215.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Action by Edgar R. Williams against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

William E. Weaver, for appellant.

Samuel E. Oppenheimer, for respondent.

*394SCOTT, P. J.

The verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence;' The'witnesses for the plaintiff, as to the happening of the accident, were the driver of the wagon and one bystander. The driver’s-evidence was of a character which gave no clear idea of how the accident happened. The bystander testified that the car was coming north on the easterly track, at a high rate of speed, about midway between Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth streets when the wagon was at the southwest corner of Thirty-Eighth street and Ninth avenue, and that the driver went right ahead, and drove in front of the car. One of the car driver’s versions seems to agree with this story, which in consistent with the testimony given by .all of the defendant’s witnesses that the driver tried to cross' about 15 or 20 feet ahead of the car. The result of the evidence is that the driver saw, or could have seen, the car coming in ample time to avoid a collision; but, either recklessly or stupidly kept on, and drove directly in front of it, thus inviting the collision that occurred.

The judgment should be reversed, ard a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### 12.210 Contract financing.

Customary market practice for some commercial products and commercial services may include buyer contract financing. The contracting officer may offer Government financing in accordance with the policies and procedures in part 32.

[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 86 FR 61022, Nov. 4, 2021]