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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 690 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 196
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 690

  To extend the eligibility of redesignated areas as HUBZones from 3 
                           years to 7 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2017

 Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Risch, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Van 
Hollen, Mr. King, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, and Ms. Duckworth) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                 on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

                             August 2, 2017

                Reported by Mr. Risch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the eligibility of redesignated areas as HUBZones from 3 
                           years to 7 years.

    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 ``HUBZone Investment Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO THE HUBZONE PROGRAM.

    Section 3(p)(4)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(p)(4)(C)) is amended by striking ``until the later of'' and all 
that follows and inserting ``for the 7-year period following the date 
on which the census tract or nonmetropolitan county ceased to be so 
qualified.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 196

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 690

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To extend the eligibility of redesignated areas as HUBZones from 3 
                           years to 7 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 2017

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Weeks, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered March 8, 1978, affirmed (see *Matter of Escobar v Roberts,*29 NY2d 594, mot to amend remittitur granted 29 NY2d 709, cert den 404 US 1047). Hopkins, J. P.., Damiani, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2

 

 

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 Reliability Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Max T. Langley, 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/ Max T. Langley
(June 24, 1963)

#### Michael Bove et al., Respondents, v. Rocco Medeo, Respondent, Samuel Director, Appellant, and Abraham Kaplan, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Lenore Medeo et al., Respondents, v. Michael Bove, Respondent, Samuel Director, Appellant, and Abraham Kaplan, Respondent. (Action No. 2.) Samuel Director, Plaintiff, v. Abraham Kaplan, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)

In three separate negligence actions, the defendant Samuel Director appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 5, 1962, which granted the motion of the defendant Abraham Kaplan to consolidate Actions Nos. 2 and 3 with Action No. 1, and directed that the consolidated actions continue in that court. Order modified as follows: (1) By striking out the first ordering paragraph which granted in all -respects the motion to consolidate, and by substituting therefor a paragraph granting the motion to the extent of consolidating Action No. 1 with Action No. 3 and denying the motion with respect to Action No. 2; (2) By striking out from the second, third and fourth ordering paragraphs (which consolidated the three actions), all reference to Action No. 2, and by amending said paragraphs accordingly; and (3) By striking out the fifth ordering paragraph which directed the Clerk of the City Court of the City of New York to transfer all the filed papers in Action No. 2 to the Supreme Court, Queens County. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, evidence of the defendant Director’s settlement of the claim against him by the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 may be admissible upon a trial of the consolidated action and, hence, may impair his right to a fair trial (cf. *Witzke*v. *Doyle,*3 Mise 2d 323). Under the circumstances Action No. 2 should not be consolidated. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph K. Rowe, Respondent, v. Alexander E. Levine, Appellant.

In an action by an attorney to recover the agreed compensation for professional services rendered to defendant at the request of the latter, who is also an attorney, in which the defendant, pursuant to permission granted on a prior appeal *(Rowe*v. *Levine,*14 A D 2d 779), interposed a second amended answer containing a repleaded counterclaim for the reasonable value of the use of defendant’s office and office facilities that plaintiff allegedly made without permission for two years after defendant terminated the retainer, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1961, which dismissed the repleaded counterclaim for patent insufficiency, without leave to amend (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 109, subd. 5). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss denied, with leave to plaintiff, if he be so advised, to serve a reply to the counterclaim within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the counterclaim states a cause of action against plaintiff. We do not now pass upon any question other than the sufficiency of the counterclaim. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §1751. Study of the feasibility of a North American National Security Program

#### (a) In general

The President shall conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing a North American National Security Program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

#### (b) Study elements

In conducting the study required by subsection (a), the President shall consider the following:

#### (1) Preclearance

The feasibility of establishing a program enabling foreign national travelers to the United States to submit voluntarily to a preclearance procedure established by the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether such travelers are admissible to the United States under section 1182 of this title. Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of expanding the preclearance program to include the preclearance both of foreign nationals traveling to Canada and foreign nationals traveling to Mexico.

#### (2) Preinspection

The feasibility of expanding preinspection facilities at foreign airports as described in section 1225a of this title. Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of expanding preinspections to foreign nationals on air flights destined for Canada and Mexico, and the cross training and funding of inspectors from Canada and Mexico.

#### (3) Conditions

A determination of the measures necessary to ensure that the conditions required by section 1225a(a)(5) of this title are satisfied, including consultation with experts recognized for their expertise regarding the conditions required by that section.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 1 year after May 14, 2002, the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title IV, §401, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 557.)

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
### §87e–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–472, title I, §110(b), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2061

Section, Pub. L. 94–582, §23, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2888, authorized purchase or lease of inspection equipment.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.0
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
United States Filter Corporation:
 
  We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-30783 and No. 333-45955) on Form S-8, the Registration Statements (No.
333-24465, No. 333-07759 and No. 333-45981) on Form S-3 and the Registration
Statements (No. 333-35189, No. 333-39711, No. 333-42463, No. 333-52487 and No.
333-52717) on Form S-4 of United States Filter Corporation of our report dated
June 1, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of United States
Filter Corporation as of March 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1998,
which report appears in the March 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
United States Filter Corporation.
 
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Orange County, California
June 26, 1998
This  AGREEMENT  was  made  on  August  3,  1999.


Between:  649.com  inc.  ('ABET')
          ABET  is  a  public  company  listed  on  the  US  OTC Bulletin Board.

And:     Lawrence  P  Burbidge  ('LPB")  as  Consultant.
         LPB  is  a  resident  of  British  Columbia.

ABET  is  prepared  to have LPB act as President and CEO of ABET o the following
terms  and  conditions:

1.     Terms  and  Starting  Date:
The  initial  term is 12 months, commencing August 9th 1999.  Renewable term and
conditions  subject  to  board  approval.

2.     Compensation
a)     Base  salary  of  $8,000  (Canadian)/month  paid  bi-monthly,
b)     Signing  bonus  of 500,000 shares of ABET to be award LPB or his nominee.
       These  shares  to  be  released  to  LPB  according to SEC  regulations,
c)     Stock  options:  in  addition,  LPB  to be awarded options to purchase an
       additional  500,000  shares  at  50  cents (US)/share (option good for
       2 years),
d)     Out of pocket costs to be reimbursed, at cost, to LPB on a monthly basis,
e)     The 500,000 share stock option can only be exercised after the 12th month
       and  only  if  LPB  has  remained  as  a  consultant  for  that  period.
f)     The  500,000  bonus  shares  are  awarded  as  follows:
       180,000  shares January  31, 2000 and 30,000 share per month, thereafter,
       for a total  of 360,000 shares over 12 months with an additional 140,000
       shares due at the  end  of  the  above  12-month  period.

3.     Duties:
a)     LPB to agree to be appointed to the board of ABET as a director and to be
       the  acting  President  and  DEO,
b)     Attached  is  a  preliminary  itemized  list  of  things  to  be  done,
c)     LPB  to  be  fully  in  charge  of  ABET  and  to  report to the Board of
       Directors,  who  in  turn, report to the shareholders.  The major
       shareholder is Baycove  Investments Limited who will either appoint a
       member to the Board or be a  member  of  the  Advisory  Board.

4.     Trial  Period:

There  is  to  be  a  30  day  trail  period,  on the 30th day (September 9/99):
a)     Should  LPB  decide  that  he  does  not  wish to continue in the role of
President  and  CEO  as outlined herein, LPB shall simply be paid $8,000 for the
month  plus  all  of  his  out  of  pocket  costs,
b)     Should  the  board of ABET, as directed by the major shareholder, Baycove
Investments Limited decide that LPB is not suitable to be President and CEO then
LPB  aggress  that his total compensation to be $8,000 for the month plus all of
his  out  of  pocket  costs  plus  a  termination  bonus  of $10,000 plus 10,000
free-trading  shares  of ABET and he shall continue to be employed for a further
month  at  $8,000/month.



AGREED:                                   SIGNED:

August  9,  1999                          August  9,  1999


/s/  Lawrence  P  Burbidge                /s/  Irene  Poole
Lawrence  P  Burbidge                     Baycove  Investments  Limited
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 Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael B. Jebsen, 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 to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                         
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                        | 
|Date: December 10, 2009 |  | /s/    Michael B. Jebsen
|                        |  | Michael B. Jebsen       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00014

- CR

Felix Villarreal v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Cause No s

. B

- 14

- 2057

- 0

- CR

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED IN PART , REVERSED IN PART , and RENDERED IN PART, and the case should be REMANDED to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART , REVERSED I N PART, and RENDERED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Decembe r 8, 2016
Exhibit 99(h)





CERTIFICATE REGARDINGPPL MONTANA, LLC'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002





In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Montana,
  LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"),
  I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
  certify that:





| | · | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                         
| | · | The information contained in the Covered Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of
  this 3rd day of March, 2003.









| | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. Abel
      Treasurer
      PPL Montana, LLC
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

M.G.S., an adjudicated adult ward under 

court appointed guardianship, by NextFriends, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN TOERPE, Court-Appointed 

Guardian, et al. 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 11-cv-7934 

Honorable Judge Guzman

Magistrate Judge Gilbert 

JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

 Defendant JUDGE JANE LOUISE STUART and CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK 

COUNTY PROBATE DIVISION (collectively “Judicial Defendants”), by their attorney, LISA 

MADIGAN, Illinois Attorney General, hereby move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the reasons set 

forth in the memorandum of support of this motion; that memorandum is incorporated herein by 

reference. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Deborah M. Beltran

LISA MADIGAN Deborah Morgan Beltran, Illinois 6283574 

Illinois Attorney General James A. Lang, Illinois 06211100 

 Assistant Attorneys General

 General Law Bureau 

 100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor 

 Chicago, IL 60601 

 Phone: (312) 814-6534/5694 

 Fax: (312) 814-4425 

 dbeltran@atg.state.il.us

 jlang@atg.state.il.us

Case: 1:11-cv-07934 Document #: 17 Filed: 12/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:37
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 649 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

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 ‘‘Cameras in the Court5 room Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 649 IS

1 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

2 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

3 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

4 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

5 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 

6 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

7 the Court.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

9 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

10 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §1456. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–682, §12(c), Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 708, eff. Sept. 1, 1960

Section, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §345, 66 Stat. 266, related to free transmittal of official mail in naturalization matters. See section 3202 of Title 39, Postal Service.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jean Gottfried, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 1978, which reversed the decision of a referee overruling an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective October 1, 1977, because she voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality. Claimant, who had worked as a signature clerk for a New York bank for 10 years, left her employment and moved to Florida with her husband, who had been advised by his physician to find a warmer climate to help relieve his arthritis and increasing bouts of chest pain. Upon applying for benefits in Florida, claimant stated that she terminated her employment because it was necessary to be with her husband to attend his health needs. While the evidence suggests that claimant’s husband, who is 76, is not in the best of health, there is no medical evidence that claimant’s presence to attend his health needs was necessary. She explained that her husband needed her to cook his meals and give him his medication in the morning, but she indicated on her claim for benefits that she was available for full-time employment. Under similar circumstances, this court has sustained the board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality *(Matter of Echevarria [Levine], 52*AD2d 681; *Matter of Nachman [Levine],*51 AD2d 1101; *Matter of Sisto [Levine],*50 AD2d 701; *Matter of Toback [Levine],*49 AD2d 781). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.