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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2018 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to identify the persons who are 

eligible to request headstones or markers furnished by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs, and or other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2013 

Mr. STIVERS (for himself, Mr. TIBERI, and Mrs. BEATTY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to identify the persons who are eligible to request headstones or markers 

furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and or 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Honor Those Who 

5 Served Act of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2018 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO REQUEST HEADSTONES OR 

2 MARKERS FURNISHED BY THE SECRETARY 

3 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2306 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsections: 

7 ‘‘(h) A person may request a headstone or marker 

8 to commemorate a decedent under this section if the per9 son is— 

10 ‘‘(1) the decedent’s next of kin; 

11 ‘‘(2) a person authorized in writing by the dece12 dent’s next of kin to make such request; 

13 ‘‘(3) a personal representative authorized in 

14 writing by the decedent to make such request; 

15 ‘‘(4) in the case of a decedent for whom no per16 son described in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) may be 

17 identified, a State veterans service agency, a military 

18 researcher, a local historian, or a genealogist or 

19 other person familiar with the research sources and 

20 methods necessary to prove the identity of the dece21 dent; or 

22 ‘‘(5) in the case of a decedent who is a veteran 

23 who served on active duty in the Armed Forces at 

24 least 62 years before the date on which the head25 stone or marker is requested, any person. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2018 IH

1 ‘‘(i) In the case of a request for a headstone or mark2 er under this section for a decedent for whom insufficient 

3 information exists regarding the religious beliefs of the in4 dividual to select an appropriate emblem of belief for the 

5 headstone or marker of the decedent, the person request6 ing the headstone or marker may request a headstone or 

7 marker without an emblem of belief.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a request for 

10 a headstone or marker submitted after the date of the en11 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 1752.31 Authorized signatories.

Only the RUS Administrator can bind the Government to the expenditure of funds. Notwithstanding anything contained in this part, however, any settlement resulting in the reduction of $500,000 or more in payment to the Government, inclusive of attorney's fees, shall be approved by the Under Secretary for Rural Development, or higher.
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Peter J. Hoyle, the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of GA Computer Sciences Inc. (the Company), hereby
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:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company, for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2006, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                       

| | By:    | /s/ Peter J. Hoyle                                  | 
| | ------ | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Name:  | PETER J. HOYLE                                     
| |        |                                                    
| | Title: | President, Secretary, Treasurer,                   
| |        | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| |       
| | Date:  | September 13, 2006                                 

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
TS-AMID30

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d 

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter 
Attachment #4

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical 

Substances at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture 

And Processing

TS-AMID30
§ 201.56-11 Knotweed family, Polygonaceae. Kinds of seed: Buckwheat, rhubarb, and sorrel. ( a ) General description. ( 1 ) Germination habit: Epigeal dicot.
( 2 ) Food reserves: Cotyledons, starchy endosperm.
( 3 ) Shoot system: The hypocotyl elongates carrying the cotyledons above the soil surface. The epicotyl usually does not show any development within the test period.
( 4 ) Root system: A primary root, with secondary roots developing within the test period for some kinds.
( b ) Abnormal seedling description. ( 1 ) Cotyledons: ( i ) Less than half of the original cotyledon tissue remaining attached.
( ii ) Less than half of the original cotyledon tissue free of necrosis or decay.
( 2 ) Epicotyl: ( i ) Missing. (May be assumed to be present if cotyledons are intact.)
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) Hypocotyl: ( i ) Deep open cracks or grainy lesions extending into the conducting tissue.
( ii ) Malformed, such as markedly shortened, curled, or thickened.
( iii ) Watery.
( 4 ) Root: ( i ) None.
( ii ) Weak, stubby, or missing primary root with weak secondary or adventitious roots.
( 5 ) Seedling: ( i ) One or more essential structures impaired as a result of decay from primary infection.
( ii ) Albino.
[59 FR 64506, Dec. 14, 1994]
M. P. No. 80-65.

#### City of Woonsocket *v.*Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #9 *et al.*

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. *Aram P. Janet, Jr.,*Assistant City Solicitor, for petitioner, *Paul P. Baillargeon,*for respondents.
#### §§ 1786.62-1786.74 [Reserved]
#### *Peteet vs. Owsley.*

SclRÉ PACIAS

Case 21.

Error to the ltookcastlo Circuit; Joseph Eye, Judge,

*Bail. Scire facias. Conditions.*

Bni! <o the aciio'i who entered into the rooogni2.i>ioeun er the act of Iíi21,i8 not liable till after *ca sa*re turned, tho’ th >t writ is abolish d by the acr, and so tho *scire facias*caunot be maintained.

April 25.

Caperton, for plaintiff; Robertson, for defendant.

Chief Justice Bibb

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

John Owsley sued a writ of *capias cul*respondendum, against Edward Evans, hearing teste on trie 29th June, 1824, and by affidavit procured an endorsement of the writ, that bail was required. According to the form given by statute, Benjamin PelCet acknowledged himself special bail by endorsement on the writ, on the 29th June, 1824. Owsley recovered a judgment against Evans, at September term 1824, suéda *fieri facias,*which was returned no property found. *Whereupon he*sued a *scire facias*against 'the bail, and had judgment against him for the damages recovered against Evans.

The recognizance of bail to tbe action, or special bail, is an undertaking well known, and the law is well settled, that the bail can never be subjected to answer the debt or damages, without a'ca. *sa.*against the prim ipal. That is indispensable. Tbe act of 1821, abolished all laws which authorized *n-capias ad*satisfaciendum, and since that time no such writ could lawfully issue, to forfeit the recognizance aforesaid. Therefore, no *ca. sa.*lias issued in this case before suing the *scire*facias, and none could have lawfully issued. The bail piece cannot, therefore, have been forfeited. Although the legislature did authorize bail to be demanded in certain cases, they failed to. provide that any *ca. sa.*should issue against the principal in such cases,’ and did not. provide any change in the undertaking of the bail, nor any mode by which .the recognizance of bail should be. forfeited. *It is casvs*omissus, which *this*court cannot supply. *It does*judicially appear that the bail .piece had not been ferfeited, and therefore, judgment upon the *scire facias*should have been for the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded with direction to enter judgment for the defendant.

Plaintiff to recover bis costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6320

JOHN REYNOLDS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

STOUFFER; MICHAEL STOUFFER; BOBBY P. SHEARIN; DALE SMITH, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-00824-DKC) 

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, 

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

John Reynolds appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Reynolds v. Stouffer, 

No. 8:13-cv-00824-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 11, 2014). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151343-4

BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151343-4

COA: 317864, 317866

Kalamazoo CC: 2012-000600-NF

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the defendant 

Michigan Assigned Claims Plan could not deny the plaintiff hospital’s application for 

assignment of its claim for benefits as “an obviously ineligible claim,” MCL 500.3173a. 

The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.576 Rental Assistance (RA) for new construction. ( a ) *Amount available for allocations.* See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
( b ) *Basic formula criteria, data source and weight.* See § 1940.575(b) of this subpart.
( c ) *Basic formula allocation.* See § 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
( d ) *Transition formula.* See § 1940.552(d) of this subpart.
( e ) *Base allocation.* See § 1940.552(e) of this subpart.
( f ) *Administrative allocations.* See § 1940.552(f) of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive administrative allocations.
( g ) *Reserve.* See § 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
( h ) *Pooling of funds.* See § 1940.552(h) of this subpart.
( i ) *Availability of the allocation.* See § 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
( j ) *Suballocation by the State Director.* See § 1940.552(j) of this subpart.
( k ) *Other documentation.* Not applicable.
[53 FR 26229, July 12, 1988]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,657
<PP&E>                                          73,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,953
<SALES>                                         13,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,216
<CGS>                                            9,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,033
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
#### Sander’s Heirs *vs.*Jennings and Trueman.

Chancery.

Parties to a, bill in chancery who have not appeared, nor been summoned,arenotbound by any agreement made by other parties who do appear. An agreement that the answer of one defendant shall be tallen as the answer of another defendant also, can only be the agreement of those before the court, and will not authorize any decree against defendants who have not been served with process— actual or constructive.

[Messrs. Sanders andDepew for Appellants: Mr. Robinson for Appellees.]

From the Circuit Court for, Owen County.

*April*9.

Judge Underwood

Delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The bill in this case was filed, by the appellees, for the purpose of coercing the specific execution of a contract made between'Nathaniel Sanders and Jacob Wyant, both of whom were dead at the institution of the suit: The appellees claimed the land under the heirs of Wyant. In the progress of the cause a supplemental bill was filed, from which it appears that the title was in Pi;entiss and Bouldin. The court rendered a decree directing Prentiss and Bouldin to convey the title to the complainants.

The decree must be reversed, with costs, because Prentiss and Bouldin were not' made parties to the suit by the service of process, actual or constructive.. After they were made defendants by the supplemental hill, an entry was placed in the order book to this effect:— u This day came the parties, by their attornies, and by consent, the answer of-Sanders’ heirs is to be taken and considered the answer' of Prentiss and Bouldin ; and the answer of George and Joshua Wyant to be taken and considered as the answer of Wyant’s, heirs.” The *parties*who thus consented could b.e those only who had been brought.before the court by service of process, or who had entered an appearance. • Prentiss and Bouldin and Wyant’s heirs, George- and Joshua excepted, were not before the court ; and, therefore, the foregoing order did not operate upon them. . And'hence it was erroneous'to make such an order the foundation upon which Prentiss and Bouldin' were directed to convejtheir title. It is absurd for the parties before the court-to undertake to enter into agreements affecting the *38rights of those who are not before the court, and we cannot suffer such a practice to prevail.

The complainants had n<? cause of action, unless the' heirs of Wyant had sold them the land contracted for by their ancestor. The admission of George and Joshua that they had sold their interest to the complainants, did not prove that their co-heirs had likewise sold to the complainants; and George and Joshua had no authority to consent for their co-heirs that such was the fact.

The decree is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for proper parties and new proceedings.
If you or a friend has a family member who has
been in prison or jail, please let us know so we
may share supportive resources.

: , ‘Something that would have definitely helped me
When my dad was in prison, some daysIreally | would have been the ability to have video calls

wished I could talk to him face-to-face when I with my dad. It would have made it easier to get
was at home instead of over a phone. through his time in prison. }
Exhibit 32.2





Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Dan Hopgood, executive vice president, chief financial officer of Nordson Corporation, an Ohio corporation (the “ Company ”), do hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge:


1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2025 of the Company (the “ Form 10-Q ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


2. Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: February 20, 2025/s/ Dan HopgoodDan HopgoodExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 2147

JEROME GARCIA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RICHLAND CO. TREASURY; TREASURER KENDRA L. DOVE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 3:23

- cv - 04758

- MGL )

Submitted : December 19 , 2023 Decided: December 21, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM , and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jerome Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2147 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Jerome Garcia appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Garcia’s civil complaint without prejudice . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s
order

. Garcia v. Richland Co. Treasury , No. 3:23

- cv - 04758

- MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2023)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the de cisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-2147 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Ceridian Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald L. Turner,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ RONALD L.  TURNER                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald L. Turner                                  |
|   | *Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | March 16, 2006                               |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to Ceridian Corporation and will be retained by Ceridian Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
**Exhibit 13.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 20-F of China Natural Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ZhuYouyi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

/s/ ZhuYouyi            

Zhu Youyi

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

September 28, 2023