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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1095 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1095

To declare an AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or 
  a 5.56x45mm NATO round to be the National Gun of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2023

  Mr. Moore of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Clyde, Mrs. Boebert, and Mr. 
   Santos) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To declare an AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or 
  a 5.56x45mm NATO round to be the National Gun of the United States.

    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 ``AR-15 National Gun Act''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

     An AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or a 
5.56x45mm NATO round is hereby declared to be the National Gun of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

I, R. Foster Duncan, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cinergy Corp., The Cincinnati Gas &Electric Company, PSI Energy, Inc., and The Union Light, Heat and PowerCompany;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrants’ othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:

 

a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants, including their consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrants’ othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors andthe audit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrants’ ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’ internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: November 13, 2003

 

 
| /s/ R. Foster Duncan    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| R. Foster Duncan        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Rivet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2005 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  March 27, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance Sheets and Consolidated Income Statements and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 189
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                           266
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      25,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                             13,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  250
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 2
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        25,069
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       606
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        61
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        141
<INCOME-TAX>                                            49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     92
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            92
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.57
        


</TABLE>
----

**EXHIBIT      3.1**

**T      R I - V A L L E Y  C O R P O R A T I O N**

**A      M E N D E D  A N D  R E S T A T E D**

**B      Y - L A W S**

** ARTICLE      I**

**OFFICES**

**ARTICLE      II**

**MEETINGS      OF STOCKHOLDERS**

**ARTICLE      III**

**DIRECTORS**

**ARTICLE      IV**

**NOTICES**

**ARTICLE      V**

**OFFICERS**

**ARTICLE      VI**

**CERTIFICATES      OF STOCK**

**ARTICLE      VII**

**GENERAL      PROVISIONS**

**ARTICLE      VIII**

**AMENDMENTS**

**Bylaws**

----
From: "Carroll, Danny (RTA)" <Danny.carroll@riotinto.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Coomes, Jamie (RTA)" <jamie.coomes@riotinto.com>, "Coomes, Brandon (RTA)" <Brandon.Coomes@riotinto.com>, "Dughaish, 

Ghassan (RTA)" <ghassan.dughaish@riotinto.com>, "Early, W. Blaine" <BEARLY@stites.com>

Date: 04/27/2011 10:39 AM

Subject: RE: Information

Here you go.

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:04 AM

To: Carroll, Danny (RTA)

Subject: Re: Information

Thanks so much for your efforts to get this information from your attorney. I'll look for the non-CBI soon.

Thanks again,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov

From: "Carroll, Danny (RTA)" <Danny.carroll@riotinto.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/26/2011 04:28 PM

Subject: Information

We have received the CBI and non-CBI information from our attorney. We are currently reviewing the 

data. The CBI will be mailed to Robert Morales and the non-CBI will be emailed to you. Sorry for the 

delay. 

 

Danny Carroll, CHMM

Environmental & Laboratory Supervisor

Rio Tinto Alcan - Sebree Works

Alcan Primary Products Corporation

9404 State Route 2096

Robards, KY 42452

Telephone : 270-521-7342

Cell : 270-577-9687

Fax : 270-521-7455
#### New Netherland Bank of New York, appellee, v. Albert Harris and Isaac Cohen, copartners, trading as Albert Harris & Cohen, appellants.

Gen. No. 30,745.

Action to recover percentage of claim under composition agreement with bankrupt. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. B. Lane, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 23, 1926.

David Jetzinger, for appellants.

Levinson, Hoffman & Rein, for appellee; Calmon R. Golder, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Douglas Jermaine JORDAN, Appellant.

No. 06-3700.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 30, 2007.

Filed Nov. 8, 2007.

Robert L. Eberhardt, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America.

John J. Mead, Scarpitti & Mead, Erie, PA, for Appellant.

Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges and VANASKIE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Douglas Jermaine Jordan pleaded guilty to one count of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over fifty grams of cocaine base and over five hundred grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, reserving the right to dispute the actual amount or the weight of the drugs as may be attributable to him. A pre-sentence report determined Jordan’s involvement in this drug conspiracy to mandate an attribution of the total amount of the cocaine base and the powder cocaine found in a safe in the home of a co-conspirator pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. After a hearing in which Jordan objected to the attribution, the District Court adopted the PSR, attributing 240 grams of cocaine base to Jordan.

The Sentencing Guidelines Commentary provides that where “there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the sentencing judge shall approximate the quantity of *247the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Application Note 12.

Here, the District Court considered all of the evidence that was presented as well as the competing arguments of defense counsel and the Government and imposed a sentence based upon the court’s conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence established that Jordan knew that his co-conspirator’s operations involved both cocaine base and powder cocaine. Indeed, Jordan himself admitted to selling both substances. Moreover, as part of his plea, Jordan voluntarily and knowingly agreed with the Government’s proffer which indicated that the conspiracy engaged in the sale of both cocaine base and powder cocaine; that on a weekly basis quantities of both cocaine base and powder cocaine were transported from Buffalo, New York to Erie, Pennsylvania; and that Jordan had himself sold both “crack and powder cocaine.” As the Government points out, Jordan reserved an objection only to the amount of cocaine base he may have sold — not challenging the fact that Jordan had sold cocaine base. The District Court also heard the testimony of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who indicated that the contents of a safe uncovered at a “stash house” merely provided a “snapshot in time” of the group’s overall activities.

Accordingly, the District Court’s conclusion that Jordan was responsible for 240.2 grams of cocaine base was not clearly erroneous. For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of sentence
Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002November 13, 2008In connection with the filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Church Loans & Investments Trust, a Texas real estate investment trust, (the Trust), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Trust certifies that, to the best of the officers knowledge:(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report./s/ M. Kelly Archer                                                    .M. Kelly Archer
President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Robert E. Fowler                                                    .Robert E. Fowler
Senior Vice-President and CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Church Loans & Investments Trust and will be retained by Church Loans & Investments Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.  -1-
To: lynne_oreschnigger@huntsman.com, 

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: HPV 3 CASRN 5026-74-4 EPA grants request for extension of time to submit test data

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Thursday 12/20/2012 01:56 PM

Dear Ms. Oreschnigg, EPA has carefully considered your request for an extension of the deadline for 

submitting test data required under the referenced test rule on CASRN 5026-74-4. We considered in 

evaluating this request is the fact that much of the testing is being conducted for the REACH Registration 

purposes and your need to conform to regulations governing that process. It is very important that you 

understand the TSCA regulations regarding the submission of health and safety data produced as the 

consequence of a Section 4 test rule to the public docket. As a general rule, all health and safety data 

submitted as a consequences of a Section 4 Test rule must be in the docket and available to the public. I 

suggest that you make specific inquiries to John Schaeffer so that he can help you get the clarifications 

and information you need regarding redactions to your reports to avoid any misunderstanding and to 

minimize the time and money involved in some other course of action which may meet with resistance 

from the Agency. At this point we think it is prudent to approve your request for an extension of time 

necessary to resolve these issues and submit the testing data required in the test rule. We approve the 

extension to December 31, 2013 per your request in a letter sent to the Document Control Office on 

December 20, 2012.

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS H. STUP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-2426

MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster

General, United States Postal

Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-1803-A)

Submitted: January 9, 1997

Decided: January 22, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Douglas H. Stup, Appellant Pro Se. Marc R. Hillson, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Douglas H. Stup appeals from the district court's adverse grant of

summary judgment and dismissal of his employment discrimination

and retaliation action. Stup's action was based on the Defendant's

alleged improper charge against Stup of leave without pay for a

twenty-four hour period. The Defendant's action was taken following

Stup's undocumented absence in excess of six working days, in violation of applicable provisions of the United States Postal Service

Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which provisions were

known to Stup, and institutional practices.

Our review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses

that this appeal is without merit. Stup failed to establish a prima facie

case of discriminatory retaliation. See Huang v. Board of Governors,

902 F.2d 1134, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.,

871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, even assuming that

Stup had established a prima facie case of retaliation, we agree with

the district court that he failed to prove that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason Defendant proffered to support its determination

that Stup should not be paid for the relevant time period was pretextual. See McNairn v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir. 1991); Ross

v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985);

see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1



TRANSENTERIX, INC.




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN,

AS AMENDED

EFFECTIVE DATE:




This Amendment No. 2, dated and effective May 25, 2017 (the “Amendment”), is an amendment to
the Amended and Restated Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), of TransEnterix,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). All capitalized terms used in this Amendment without
definition have the meanings set forth in the Plan.



WHEREAS, Section 10(e) authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) to make
amendments to the Plan, subject to stockholder approval as required by law or agreement.



WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, the Board approved amendments to the Plan to increase the number
of shares available for awards under the Plan by 7,000,000, from 18,940,000 to 25,940,000, and
submitted the Amendment to the Company’s stockholders for approval at the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders held on May 25, 2017.



WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, the stockholders approved the foregoing amendments to the Plan.



NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, and in accordance with the approvals set forth
in the WHEREAS clauses, which are incorporated by reference into this Amendment, the Company amends
the Plan as follows:



1. Section 4(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following:



“4. Shares Subject to Plan.



(a) Limitation on Overall Number of Shares Available for Delivery Under
Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10(c) hereof, the total
number of Shares reserved and available for delivery under the Plan shall be
25,940,000. Any Shares that are subject to Awards shall be counted against
this limit as one (1) Share for every one (1) Share granted. Any Shares
delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and
unissued shares or treasury shares.”



2. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan continues in full force and effect.



3. In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall
govern.



Adopted by the Board of Directors: February 2, 2017


Adopted by the stockholders: May 25, 2017