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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 204 

Honoring the 100th anniversary of Selfridge Air National Guard Base in 

Harrison Township, Michigan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2017 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 100th anniversary of Selfridge Air National 

Guard Base in Harrison Township, Michigan. 

Whereas 2017 marks the 100th anniversary of a military installation operating in Harrison Township, Michigan; 

Whereas Selfridge Air National Guard Base is named after 

Army 1st Lieutenant Thomas E. Selfridge, who saw the 

potential of powered flight; 

Whereas Lieutenant Selfridge became the first casualty of 

flight when he was killed during a demonstration flight 

with Orville Wright in 1908; 

Whereas the Army commissioned Selfridge Field on July 1, 

1917, and the first flight occurred on July 8, 1917; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 204 IS 

Whereas, on June 27, 1919, Selfridge Field became the home 

of the 1st Pursuit Group, the oldest combat group in the 

Air Force; 

Whereas, on October 14, 1922, 1st Lieutenant Russell 

Maughan flew the first aircraft to exceed 200 miles per 

hour at Selfridge Field; 

Whereas the 332d Fighter Group of the Tuskegee Airmen 

moved to Selfridge Field on March 29, 1943, and Colonel 

Benjamin O. Davis became its first African-American 

commander on October 8, 1943; 

Whereas, on July 20, 1948, the first transatlantic flight by 

a fighter aircraft launched from Selfridge Field headed to 

Berlin during the Berlin Airlift; 

Whereas, on July 1, 1971, Selfridge Field was transferred to 

the Michigan Air National Guard, becoming the first 

major active Air Force base to come under control of the 

Air National Guard; 

Whereas, in 1991, Selfridge Air National Guard Base founded the first STARBASE program, a Department of Defense program for students in kindergarten through 12th 

grade that provides math and science education; 

Whereas the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard 

was established at Selfridge Air National Guard Base on 

April 1, 1996; 

Whereas Selfridge Air National Guard Base is the host to at 

least 40 tenant units representing every branch of the 

Armed Forces, the Coast Guard, and representing members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, in a reserve component, or in the National Guard; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 204 IS 

Whereas Selfridge Air National Guard Base is the home to 

the KC–135 Stratotanker and the A–10 Thunderbolt II; 

and 

Whereas, as of the date of agreement to this resolution, 

Selfridge Air National Guard Base is being considered to 

host the F–35 Lightning II, the Air Force’s newest fifthgeneration fighter: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors Selfridge Air National Guard Base 

3 in Harrison Township, Michigan, on its 100th anni4 versary; and 

5 (2) commends the thousands of men and 

6 women who have worked and trained at Selfridge 

7 Air National Guard Base. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
22.302 Liquidated damages and overtime pay. ( a ) When an overtime computation discloses underpayments, the responsible contractor or subcontractor must pay the affected employee any unpaid wages and pay liquidated damages to the Government. The contracting officer must assess liquidated damages at the rate specified at 29 CFR 5.5(b)(2) per affected employee for each calendar day on which the employer required or permitted the employee to work in excess of the standard workweek of 40 hours without paying overtime wages required by the statute. In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 Note), the Department of Labor adjusts this civil monetary penalty for inflation no later than January 15 each year.
( b ) If the contractor or subcontractor fails or refuses to comply with overtime pay requirements of the statute and the funds withheld by Federal agencies for labor standards violations do not cover the unpaid wages due laborers and mechanics and the liquidated damages due the Government, make payments in the following order— ( 1 ) Pay laborers and mechanics the wages they are owed (or prorate available funds if they do not cover the entire amount owed); and
( 2 ) Pay liquidated damages.
( c ) If the head of an agency finds that the administratively determined liquidated damages due under paragraph (a) of this section are incorrect, or that the contractor or subcontractor inadvertently violated the statute despite the exercise of due care, the agency head may— ( 1 ) Reduce the amount of liquidated damages assessed for liquidated damages of $500 or less;
( 2 ) Release the contractor or subcontractor from the liability for liquidated damages of $500 or less; or
( 3 ) Recommend that the Secretary of Labor reduce or waive liquidated damages over $500.
( d ) After the contracting officer determines the liquidated damages and the contractor makes appropriate payments, disburse any remaining assessments in accordance with agency procedures.
[65 FR 46065, July 26, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 24203, Apr. 29, 2014; 83 FR 19149, May 1, 2018]
#### Weiner Brothers Company *v.*Tucker.

March 11, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Maddox. Chattooga superior court. April 10, 1912.

*G. D. Rivers,*for plaintiff in error. *J. M. Bellah,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. Agency can not be proved by evidence of mere declarations of the alleged agent; but when accompanied by other evidence as to the conduct of the person in the character of agent, and acceptance ' by the alleged- principal of the fruits of the agency, such declarations are admissible in evidence.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beelc, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
```

[111th Congress Public Law 159]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 1123]]

Public Law 111-159
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health 
  coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal 
       essential coverage. <<NOTE: Apr. 26, 2010 -  [H.R. 4887]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: TRICARE 
Affirmation Act.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 26 USC 1 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TRICARE Affirmation Act''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH COVERAGE AS 
                    MINIMAL ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, <<NOTE: Ante, p. 244.>>  is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following new 
        clause:
                          ``(iv) medical coverage under chapter 55 of 
                      title 10, United States Code, including coverage 
                      under the TRICARE program;'';
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
            (3) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (4) by inserting after clause (vi) the following new clause:
                          ``(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund Health 
                      Benefits Program of the Department of Defense, 
                      established under section 349 of the National 
                      Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
                      (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1587 note).''.

    (b) <<NOTE: 26 USC 5000A note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendments 
made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 1501(b) 
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and shall be executed 
immediately after the amendments made by such section 1501(b).

    Approved April 26, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4887:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Mar. 20, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy Pierce, Appellant.

Judgment rendered October 9,1961, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree with intent to commit the crime of rape and two counts of placing a child in such a situation as likely to impair her morals, unanimously modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction under count 2 (placing a child in such a situation as likely to impair her morals), and, as so modified, affirmed. The jury disagreed as to count 3 (exposure of person) which is alleged to have occurred at the same time and place as the incident referred to in count 2. We hold defendant’s guilt on count 2 was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was sentenced on the felony count as a second felony offender and sentence was suspended on each of the two misdemeanor counts. On this record we do not find the sentence imposed to be excessive. The order of this court entered on June 18, 1963 is hereby vacated. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

 

Douglas Siple, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 4019

)

AllianceOne Receivables Management, ) Judge Conlon

Inc., a Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to settlement and F.R.C.P. Rule 41, hereby stipulates to the 

dismissal of his claims against the Defendant, with prejudice.

Dated: August 3, 2012

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

/s/ David J. Philipps_______

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 S. Roberts Road 

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

davephilipps@aol.com

mephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04019 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:32
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 3, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice was filed electronically. Electronic notice of this 

filing will be sent to the following party. Parties may access this filing through the 

Court’s system.

Anna-Katrina S. Christakis kchristakis@gradypilgrim.com

Sulejman F. Dizdarevic sdizdarevic@gradypilgrim.com

Grady Pilgrim Christakis Bell, LLP

53 West Jackson Blvd.

Suite 1515

Chicago, Illinois 60604

/s/ David J. Philipps__________

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 South Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04019 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:33
#### In the Matter of Herbert Katz et al., Appellants, v. Board of Appeals of the Village of Kings Point, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, to compel the respondent, the Board of Appeals of the Village of Kings Point, to entertain an appeal from a determination of the Board of Trustees of said village, petitioners appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 18, 1964, which granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is insufficient on its face (CPLR 7804, subd. [f]). Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Special Term correctly ruled that the Village Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a determination or decision of the Village Board of Trustees. Section 179-b of the Village Law limits the appellate jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals to review of decisions or determinations “made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this act.” The Board of Trustees is not such an administrative official. Its decision amending a previously granted permit may, however, be classified as an administrative act; but in such cases the review must be by the courts pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules; and the review is limited to the issue of whether the Board of Trustees acted reasonably or arbitrarily *(Matter of Lemir Realty Corp.*v. *Larkin,*11 N Y 2d 20). Thus the petition was properly dismissed. We find untenable the issue of untimely service of the motion to dismiss the petition. If such defect existed, it was cured by the 12-day adjournment which was granted on the original return day. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
225.7201 Policy. 10 U.S.C. 4603 requires offerors and contractors to notify DoD of any intention to perform any part of a DoD contract outside the United States and Canada that— ( a ) Exceeds $750,000 in value; and
( b ) Could be performed inside the United States or Canada.
[85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 76994, Dec. 16, 2022]
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Robert M. Sandler, Senior Vice President, Controller and principal financial officer of The CatoCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:1. the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 28, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition andresults of operations of the Company.Dated: December 1, 2006       /s/ Robert M. Sandler Robert M. Sandler    Senior Vice President    Controller    principal financial officer  
26
225.7022-4 Exceptions. The prohibition at 225.7022-3 does not apply to— ( a ) Purchases under the micro-purchase threshold made using the Governmentwide commercial purchase card; or
( b ) Purchases using the SF 44 in accordance with 213.306.
[87 FR 76983, Dec. 16, 2022]
M. P. No. 75-4.

#### In re Gerard Ouimette.

*Bevilacqua & Cicilline, John F. Cicilline, John F. Sheehan,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted without prejudice to the right of the State to raise at the time of oral argument the issue of the improvidence of the grant.

Paolino, J. not participating.
#### 225.872-4 Individual determinations.

If the offer of an end product from a qualifying country source listed in 225.872-1(b), as evaluated, is low or otherwise eligible for award, prepare a determination and findings exempting the acquisition from the Buy American statute and the Balance of Payments Program as inconsistent with the public interest, unless another exception such as the Trade Agreements Act applies. Follow the procedures at PGI 225.872-4.

[70 FR 73155, Dec. 9, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 35880, June 15, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR PRIMA ENERGY CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,223,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,866,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,724,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (43,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    882,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,835,000
<PP&E>                                      72,516,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (29,335,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,921,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,304,000
<BONDS>                                        240,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,127,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,921,000
<SALES>                                     33,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,850,000
<CGS>                                       23,830,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,198,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,737,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,635,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,102,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,102,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
#### STRAUSS, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

Action by Jacob Strauss against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Charles M. Rosenthal, for appellant.

H. F. Ives, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The case was submitted to the trial justice for decision after disagree*1148xnent of the jury, and his conclusion upon the facts was based necessarily upon his estimate of the relative credibility of the witnesses who testified before him. There is no inherent improbability in the account of the accident as given by the defendant’s witnesses, and the motorman was directly corroborated by a passenger who had a clear view of occurrence. Accepting this evidence, the collision was due mainly to the recklessness of the plaintiff’s servant, and the judgment for the defendant is unassailable. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Gutierrez CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-11304

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 4, 2008.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Henry Gutierrez Carrasco raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.2005), which held that a defendant is *292not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 1:12-cv-03724 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:50

Case: 1:12-cv-03724 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:51
Exhibit 32



Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd.



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 Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John W. A. McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Randy L. Denecky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.







by /s/ Randy L. Denecky

by /s/ John W. A. McDonald



Randy L. Denecky

John W. A. McDonald

Chief Financial Officer

President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  August 10, 2004







The foregoing certification is accompanying the Report solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), is not deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of filing of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in any such filing.
#### In the Matter of Knieriemen Oil Company et al., Petitioners, v. Robert A. Lane, as Building Inspector of the Town of Poughkeepsie, et al., Respondents.

Petitioners move before the Hon. James D. Hopkins, an Associate Justice of this court, pursuant to statute (CPLR 5701, subd. [c]), for permission to appeal to this court from an order made April 16, 1964, at a Special Term, Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which dismissed the petition in a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR. The motion is denied by Mr. Justice Hopkins as unnecessary. The said order is not an intermediate order in a special proceeding, but a final judgment which granted a motion to dismiss the petition and which has terminated the proceeding (CPLR 7806). Such judgment is appealable as a matter of right (CPLR 5701, subd. [a]; cf. CPLR 103, subd. [b]).
**Program Office:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education**CFDA Number:** 84.116L**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants

Program Description

The Digital Learning Infrastructure and IT Modernization Pilot provides grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges or Universities (TCUs), and other eligible minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to support IT modernization, and to enable them to provide support and technical assistance to expand their digital learning infrastructure.  

FIPSE Home
**Who May Apply: (by category)**:  Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)

An entity, or a partnership of entities, that has demonstrated expertise in the fields of—

1. higher education;
2. the education of students with intellectual disabilities;
3. the development of comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities; and
4. evaluation and technical assistance.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 09/30/2014
|-------------------------