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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1795 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 

pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 

Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVI7 SION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Secu9 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking para10 graph (5). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1795 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub4 sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

5 (q)’’. 

6 (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 

8 (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

9 (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub11 section (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and inserting ‘‘sub12 section (q)’’. 

13 (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

14 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection 

15 (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

16 (q)’’. 

17 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security 

19 Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

20 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 

21 (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); 

22 and 

23 (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) 

25 and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1795 IH

1 each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), 

2 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and in3 serting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. 

4 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

6 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

7 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

8 2013. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Secu9 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

10 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

11 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
23.2





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Board of
Directors and Stockholders


Response
Genetics, Inc.


Los
Angeles, California





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-154307) and Form S-3 (No. 333-159296,
No. 333-159297 and No. 333-162591) of Response Genetics, Inc. of our
report dated April 13, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements
which appears in this Form 10-K.




/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP






Los
Angeles, CA





April 13,
2010
#### Charles Forman and Eli Metcoff, appellees, v. Fred Becklenberg et al., defendants, on appeal of Sol Rubin, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,319.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Clark & Clark and Edward M. Keating, for appellant. Gallagher, Shulman & Abrams, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1215.74 Personal liability.

No member or employee of the Board shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly, in any way whatsoever, to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts of either commission or omission of such member or employee under this subpart, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
EXHIBIT
32.2




Exhibit
32.2




Certification


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)




I, Mark
Kurtz, Chief Financial Officer of Haights Cross Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, 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)
that,




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
      May 29, 2009
              
              /s/ Mark
      KurtzMark
      KurtzChief
      Financial Officer




A SIGNED
ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO HAIGHTS CROSS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY HAIGHTS CROSS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS RSS-17 Dielectric Constant Profile MeasurementsThe BOREAS RSS-17 team acquired and analyzed imaging radar data from the ESA's ERS-1 over a complete annual cycle at the BOREAS sites in Canada in 1994 to detect shifts in radar backscatter related to varying environmental conditions. This data set consists of dielectric constant profile measurements from selected trees at various BOREAS flux tower sites. The relative dielectric constant was measured at C-band (frequency = 5 GHz) as a function of depth into the trunk of three trees at each site, Measurements were made during April 1994 with an Applied Microwave Corporation field PDP fitted with a 0.358-cm (0.141-inch) diameter coaxial probe tip. The data are available in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004665Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Nickeson, Jaime*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*McDonald, Kyle C.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA United States)*Zimmerman, Reiner*(Bayreuth Univ. Germany)*Way, JoBea*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL70Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL70NAS 1.15:209891/VOL70Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004665.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin Sean POLK, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-4261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 26, 2007.

Decided: Nov. 14, 2007.

Krysia Carmel Nelson, Nelson & Tucker, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Thomas Huband, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Sean Polk appeals the district court’s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). Polk’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions whether the district court erred in concluding that Polk posed a substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder and whether the court properly declined to address the argument that Polk should not be civilly committed when there was a possibility that he would not receive medication for an indefinite period due to his refusal to accept it. Polk has filed a pro se supplemental brief.* We affirm.

After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Polk *295“is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2000). Our thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Polk met this standard. *See United States v. Robinson,*404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir.2005) (stating standard of review, citing *United States v. Cox,*964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.1992)); *see also United States v. Dugger,*485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir.2007) (“A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny Polk’s motions to mediate, for the appointment of a special master, and for nonfrivolity. 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.*

*

 We have carefully reviewed the claims raised in the pro se supplemental brief and find *295them to be without merit.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1764 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1764

  To limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain 
                 Federal agencies for a 6-month period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2013

   Mr. Lucas (for himself, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Mullin, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. 
  Griffith of Virginia, and Mr. Posey) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain 
                 Federal agencies for a 6-month period.

    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 ``Ammunition Management for More 
Obtainability Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PURCHASING AMMUNITION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 551 of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) the term ``ammunition'' has the meaning given that term 
        in section 921 of title 18, United States Code; and
            (3) the term ``covered agency''--
                    (A) means an agency; and
                    (B) does not include the Department of Defense.
    (b) Prohibition.--During the 6-month period beginning on the date 
of enactment of this Act, a covered agency may not purchase during any 
month or possess, at any one time, more rounds of ammunition than the 
monthly average of the number of rounds of ammunition purchased by the 
covered agency during the period beginning on January 1, 2001 and 
ending on December 31, 2009.
    (c) GAO Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall submit to Congress a report regarding the purchasing of 
ammunition by agencies, which shall include an assessment of the effect 
of the purchasing of ammunition by agencies on the supply of ammunition 
available to the public.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1709.14 Inspections.

The grantee will permit periodic inspection of the grant project operations by a representative of the Agency.
][ Dowlohnes

Enc: (2)

cc: Service Lisl

J. Parker Erkmann

S€niorCounseì

D 202.776-2036 E p€rkmann@dowlohn€s.com

March 28,2012

VIA Electronic Filing

The Honorable Susan Kurland

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and lnternational Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Application ofJetBlue Airways Corporat¡on for Beyond-Perimeter Exemptions (DCA-San

Juan and DCA-AUstin); Docket DOT-OST-2072-0029

Dear Ms. Kurland,

As stated in the Consolidated Response of JetBlue Airways Corporation ("JetBlue") filed

yesterday in the above-referenced proceeding, enclosed with this letter please find a CD conta¡ning an

electron¡c copy of over 500 letters supporting JetBlue's applications to add service between Ronald

Reagan Washington National Airport ("DCA") and San Juan, Puerto R¡co's Luiz Munoz Marin

lnternational Airport ("SJU") and between DCA and Austin-Bergstrom lnternational Airport ("AUS").

Rather than burdening the docket with hundreds of individual submissions, JetBlue is providing a list

(attached as Exhibit A) of the cit¡zens who took the time to prepare a letter to express their support for

JetBlue's proposed new service.

This letter will be served on the other participants in this proceeding without the enclosed CD.

Any party that would like to receive a copy of the letters should contact me at 202-776-2036 or via email

at perkmann@dowlohnes.com.

Very Truly Yours,

,/k,r!k^---

Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporat¡on

Dow Lohnes PLLC

wÌvw,dowlohnes,€om

12oo New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 8oo

Washington, DC 20036-ó802

| 202.776.2ooo Í 2o2.776,2222

WA5HTNGToN, DC I ATuNra, GA
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">JCC Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Joseph, Remy, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Goldberg, Miller &amp; Rubin (Harlan R. Schreiber of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Andrew S. Borrok, J.), entered March 16, 2017. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the second, third, fourth, sixth and eighth causes of action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, a nonjury trial was held, limited to whether the services at issue were medically necessary. The trial court entered into evidence the claim forms and denial of claim forms, and the parties stipulated to the expertise of defendant's peer review doctor as a board certified internist. The doctor testified that the services provided by plaintiff lacked medical necessity. Plaintiff rested its case without calling any witnesses. Plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment entered March 16, 2017 as dismissed the second, third, fourth, sixth and eighth causes of action. </p><p>Since defendant sufficiently rebutted the presumption of medical necessity (<a href="../2012/2012_22200.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Park Slope Med. &amp; Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co.</i>, 37 Misc 3d 19</a>, 21 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2012]) and plaintiff failed to meet its ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the services at issue were medically necessary (<a href="../2015/2015_51751.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Dayan v Allstate Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 151</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51751[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]), we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding with respect thereto (<a href="../2017/2017_50937.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Orlin &amp; Cohen Orthopedic Assoc. v Allstate Ins. Co.</i>, 56 Misc 3d 132</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50937[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2017]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><br>ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.<br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: June 28, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
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 Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a California limited liability company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I,   Douglas W. Child, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



a.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



b.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material

respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Douglas W. Child

Douglas W. Child, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)



Dated May 12, 2006
§ 1700.58 Assistance to high energy cost rural communities. ( a ) *Administrator:* The authority to approve the following is reserved to the Administrator: ( 1 ) Allocation of appropriated funds among high energy cost community assistance programs;
( 2 ) Awards of grants and loans to extremely high energy cost communities;
( 3 ) Awards of grants and loans to the Denali Commission;
( 4 ) Awards of grants to State entities for State bulk fuel revolving funds; and
( 5 ) Grant agreements, loan contracts, security instruments and all other documents executed in connection with grants and loans agreements approved by the Administrator.
( b ) *The Assistant Administrator, Electric Program* has the authority to make any required certifications and to approve all grant and loan servicing actions not specifically reserved to the Administrator.
[70 FR 5351, Feb. 3, 2005]
<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 on Form 10-K of Ziff Davis Holdings Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Derek
Irwin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                        By: /s/ MARK D. MOYER
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                MARK D. MOYER
                                                CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


March 31, 2006


                                       4
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Courtside Acquisition Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the ‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Carl D. Harnick, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; 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/ Carl D. Harnick |  |  | Dated: May 9, 2007 |
|                         |

Carl D. HarnickVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)

----
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 ForgeHouse, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, John Britchford-Steel, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
Report 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.





August
14, 2009





/s/ John
Britchford-SteelJohn
      Britchford-SteelChief
      Executive Officer





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 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.