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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2319 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2319

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.

    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 ``Native American Veterans' Memorial 
Amendments Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS' MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authority To Establish Memorial.--Section 3 of the Native 
American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 
note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``within the interior 
        structure of the facility provided for by'' and inserting ``on 
        property under the jurisdiction of the Museum on the site 
        described in''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``, in consultation 
        with the Museum, is'' and inserting ``and the National Museum 
        of the American Indian are''.
    (b) Payment of Expenses.--Section 4(a) of the Native American 
Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 note; 108 
Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and National Museum of 
        the American Indian'' after ``American Indians''; and
            (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall be solely'' 
        and inserting ``and the National Museum of the American Indian 
        shall be''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2319

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.
```
EX-32
       SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF GARY BORGLUND

                  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of City Capital Corporation
(formerly known as Synthetic Turf Corporation of America) ("Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: April 25, 2005                  /s/  Gary Borglund
                                       Gary Borglund
                                       President/Secretary/Treasurer
#### § 28.18 One request only for classification.

Not more than one request for a Form A determination, or a Form C determination, or a Form D determination of the same cotton, except a request for a review determination, shall be filed by the same owner within any 30-day period. Any subsequent request shall be accomplished by redrawn samples and the Area Director may require that any Form A or Form D memoranda, Form C certificates, or other classification data previously issued by a Classing Office with respect to samples purporting to represent the same cotton shall be returned before such redrawn samples are classed.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
#### Betty Z. Greenberg, Respondent, v Julian Greenberg, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Betty Z. Greenberg, Respondent, v Julian Greenberg, et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.) (And Two Other Actions.)

— In four consolidated actions, one of which is a matrimonial action, defendants appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1978, as directed that the compensation of the plaintiff’s guardian ad litem be paid by defendant Julian Greenberg, and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court, entered April 20, 1979, as, after a settlement of all four actions, awarded counsel fees and fees to two guardians ad litem, to be paid by defendants, and failed to make the judgment *nunc pro tunc*to the date of settlement. Appeal from the order dismissed (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the counsel fees awarded to Jack Solerwitz from $7,500 to $3,500. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from. Plaintiff and the guardians ad litem are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants. A court is empowered to award counsel fees pursuant to section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law, only in matrimonial actions *(Donnarumma v Donnarumma,*72 AD2d 545). Although Special Term failed to state its reasons for awarding counsel fees, the record provides sufficient evidence to support a determination that the fees were awarded only in connection with the matrimonial action. However, we find the counsel fees were excessive to the extent indicated. Additionally, notwithstanding the fact that a court may enter a judgment *nunc pro tunc,*Special Term did not abuse its discretion when it failed to do so here. We find the defendants’ remaining contentions to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK-3

RUFUS C ROCHELL,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1414, Motion for Relief Pursuant to Old Law

Rule 35(a) by Rufus C Rochell. Defendant moves the Court to modify his sentence, pursuant to

the old version of Rule 35(a), which is applicable to offenses committed prior to November 1,

1987. This rule as in effect prior to amendment by Pub. L. 98-473 read as follows: “The court

may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal

manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)

(1987). This motion, which attacks the sentence imposed by this Court, is construed as a § 2255

motion. Defendant was previously denied collateral relief on the merits of his § 2255 motion,

and therefore he is barred from seeking such relief in this Court absent prior certification from

the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Page 2 of 2

1. Motion to modify sentence, Doc. 1414, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK-3
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly
Widescope Resources Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 1 for the
period  ending  December  31,  2011 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Richard  J.  Mark,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

Date: May 8, 2012

/s/ Richard J. Mark
-----------------------------------
Richard J. Mark
Chief Executive Officer

* 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.
```
#### § 29.3525 Leaf.

Whole, unstemmed leaf. Leaf, when applied to tobacco in strip form, shall describe the divided unit of a whole leaf.

[49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 29.3552 Subgrade.

Any grade modified by a special factor symbol.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01026-MP

CHARLES L DAVIS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3498, Motion to Alter Judgment by Charles L

Davis. In the motion, the Defendant correctly points out that the Amended Judgment, entered

after the July 9, 2008, resentencing, and dated July 16, 2008, contained three clerical errors. 

First, contrary to the findings of the Court during sentencing and the Eleventh Circuit in its

Mandate, the Amended Judgment indicated the "Date Offense Concluded" for Count Two was

March 9, 1993. In fact, it should have been changed to February 3, 1987. Second, the same is

true for the "Date Offense Concluded" for Count Three. Third, in the middle of the second page,

the Amended Judgment wrongly stated that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the 

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3511 Filed 09/03/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01026-MP

Sentencing Guidelines applied to Defendant. Those provisions do not apply, however, based on

the Eleventh Circuit's Mandate. 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Clerk is directed to enter a Second Amended Judgment which sets February 3, 1987,

as the "Date Offense Concluded" for Counts Two and Three. The Second Amended

Judgment should also state that the Sentencing Reform Act and the Sentencing

Guidelines do not apply. Thus, Mr. Davis is not subject to the non-parole provisions of

Sentencing Reform Act. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3511 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 2
[491O-I3_P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRAJ'ISPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

ONCURRENCES

OUTING SYMBOL

-1

INITIALS'S'G

o q ;)3 IV

ROUTI '0 SYM L

~ro 'NInALgJ\lG

A-~1Wv'1

Series Airplanes

14 CFR Part 39 C-r,..&.-

DATF.

[Docket N9L FAA-201 0-0639; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-232-AD; Amendmen qo jJ If I {'J

\

' nU" 7 "'0"" "" C

39- If. AD 2010-**-**1 . Ji,/I'f-IN

, .1.--\ - o? INITIALSISIG

RiN 2I20-AA64 J NJu,--

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-8-31, DC-8-32 1

DC-8-61 Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-70 Series Airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 Airplanes; Model DC-8-50 Series Airplal1~;-

Model DC-SF-54 and DC-SF-55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-60 Series Airplanes; Model

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing ainvorthiness directive (AD) that

'NITlAL5IS'G

applies to all of tbe McDonnell Douglas Corporation airplanes identified above. The

existing AD cunently requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate new

ROUTING iin,OOL

auwortbiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation

INITIAlS'SlG

Regulation No. 88 requirements. This new AD adds requirements to revise the

maintenance program to incorporate specific Critical DesIgn Configuration Control ROUTING WMROL

Limitations (CDCCL) infonnation and install fuel tank float switch in-line fuses. This

new AD also adds two Airworthiness Limitations inspections (ALIs). This AD results DATE

from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the

potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, I~ITIALS"'O

repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, co

result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1251, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Willie

Bud Reed, Jr. Defendant asks this Court to reconsider its order denying Defendant’s motion to

reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant argues that he is entitled to a reduced

sentence based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines

(“Guidelines”). The Court determined that Defendant’s Base Offense Level under the

Guidelines increased to level 38, with a Total Offense Level of 41. Defendant’s original

sentence of 420 months was therefore unaffected by Amendments 706 and 711. In his motion,

Defendant raises the same arguments made in his motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 1223) and his

reply (Doc. 1241). The Court finds those arguments to be without merit. The Court further finds

that Defendant has raised no new arguments of merit in his motion for reconsideration that

would entitle him to a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration at Doc. 1251 is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1252 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 1
§ 250.31 Procurement requirements. ( a ) *Applicability of Federal procurement requirements.* Distributing and recipient agencies must comply with the requirements in 2 CFR part 200 and part 400, as applicable, in purchasing end products, distribution, or other processing services from processors. Distributing and recipient agencies may use procurement procedures that conform to applicable State or local laws and regulations, but must ensure compliance with the procurement requirements in 2 CFR part 200 and part 400, as applicable.
( b ) *Required information in procurement documents.* In all procurements of processed end products containing USDA donated foods, procurement documents must include the following information: ( 1 ) The price to be charged for the end product or other processing service;
( 2 ) The method of end product sales that will be utilized and assurance that crediting for donated foods will be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements for such method of sales in § 250.36;
( 3 ) The value of the donated food in the end products; and
( 4 ) The location for the delivery of the end products.
#### § 29.9231 Administration.

The Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 20250, is charged with the supervision of the Division and the performance of all duties assigned thereto in the administration of the act. The conduct of all services and the licensing or employment of inspection/grading/sampling personnel under these regulations shall be accomplished without discrimination as to race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. Information concerning such administration may be obtained from the Director.
#### Lauraetta Williams, Respondent, v Carl E. Howard et al., Defendants, and Mark Isidore, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Mark Isidore, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 2, 1979, as (1) denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint; (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion, and (3) required Isidore to accept the complaint and to serve an answer thereto. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant Isidore’s motion is granted dismissing the action as to him and the plaintiff’s cross motion is denied. In view of plaintiff’s delay of 20 months in complying with defendant Isidore’s demand for service of a complaint, coupled with her further delay of approximately 28 months in applying to be relieved of her default after receipt of notice of rejection for untimely service and the inadequacy of the excuse offered, it was an abuse of discretion to deny Isidore’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), to grant plaintiff’s cross motion and to require Isidore to accept service of the complaint and to serve an answer thereto (see *Verre v Rosas,*47 NY2d 795; *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594; *Nobisso v Freed,*74 AD2d 820; *Berland v Fine,*63 AD2d 642). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Paul J. Cornell, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited. 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By:  /s/ Paul J. Cornell   Paul J. Cornell
*Thursday, October 15, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

98-1483.

#### State v. Jones.

Ashtabula C.P. No. 97CR221. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Ashtabula County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for extension of time for transmission of the record be, and hereby is, granted, and the time for transmitting the record is extended to November 23, 1998. No further extensions mil be granted.
§ 1786.98 Discounted present value. ( a ) The Discounted Present Value shall be calculated by RUS before prepayment is made by summing the present values of all remaining payments on all outstanding notes according to the following formula to compute the discounted present value of each note and adjusting as here and after provided for tax exempt financing. Where: Pk = Total payment, including interest, due on the kth payment date following the prepayment date. n = Total number of remaining payment dates. I = The discount rate applied to each transaction will be ascertained by using data specified in the “Federal Reserve Statistical Release” which is published each Monday. (See appendix B to subpart E of this part.) The specific discount rate will be the discount rate(s) specified in the “Treasury Constant Maturities” section of this publication eight working days prior to the closing. In applying the discount rate, the 1-year Treasury rate will be used for all notes with a remaining term of less than 2 years; the 2-year Treasury rate for notes with maturities between 2 and 3 years; the 3-year Treasury rate for all notes with maturities between 3 and 5 years; the 5-year Treasury rate for all notes with maturities between 5 and 7 years; the 7-year Treasury rate for all notes with maturities between 7 and 10 years; the 10-year Treasury rate for all notes with maturities between 10 and 30 years; and the 30-year Treasury rate for all notes with maturities longer than 30 years. D1i = Number of days in the ith payment period that are in a non-leap year (365 day year). D2i = Number of days in the ith payment period that are in a leap year (366 day year).
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, in the event that the borrower shall elect to prepay using tax exempt financing, the calculation of the Discounted Present Value shall be adjusted to make the discount the equivalent of fully taxable financing.
Exhibit 99.6

                              Outback Capital Inc.

July 15, 2005


International Gemini Technology Inc.
#208 - 828 Harbourside Drive
N. Vancouver, BC V7P 3R9

Attention: Martin Schultz, Secretary

Dear Sirs:

Re: Subscription Agreement dated as of April 15, 2005 [the "Agreement"]

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Agreement,  you were to advance the  subscription
proceeds on or prior to today.

In consideration of our recent discussions,  and on your undertaking to continue
funding  the  Company on an "as  needed"  basis,  we hereby  agree to extend the
deadline set in the Agreement for  one-year.  The final  sentence of Paragraph 1
shall now read as follows:

     THE  SUBSCRIBER  WILL MAKE FULL  PAYMENT  FOR SUCH UNITS BY CHEQUE OR MONEY
     ORDER PAYABLE TO "OUTBACK CAPITAL INC" ON OR BEFORE JULY 15, 2006.

We trust that this meets with your approval,  and request that you indicate your
concurrence by executing this letter below,  and by returning one signed copy to
the attention of the undersigned as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

OUTBACK CAPITAL INC.

"signed"
-------------------------------
Douglas E. Ford
President


Agreed and acknowledged this 15th day of July 2005

INTERNATIONAL GEMINI TECHNOLOGY INC.


Per: "signed"
-------------------------------
Martin Schultz, Secretary



           #208 - 828 HARBOURSIDE DRIVE * NORTH VANCOUVER, BC V7P 3R9
                      TEL: 604.904.8481 * FAX: 604.904.9431