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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2527 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2527

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans with 
    counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that occurred during 
                        inactive duty training.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR SEXUAL TRAUMA OCCURRING DURING 
              INACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING.

    Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``active duty or 
        active duty for training'' and inserting ``active duty, active 
        duty for training, or inactive duty training''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) by striking ``this section, the'' and inserting 
                the following: ``this section:
    ``(1) The''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(2) The term `veteran', with respect to inactive duty training 
described in subsection (a)(1), also includes an individual who--
            ``(A) is not otherwise eligible for the benefits of this 
        chapter; and
            ``(B) while serving in the reserve components of the Armed 
        Forces, performed such inactive duty training but did not serve 
        on active duty.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2527

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans with 
    counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that occurred during 
                        inactive duty training.
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Michael Alan Hodges, Appellant

No. 06-16-00067-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 54th District Court of 

McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2014-

1486-C2). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Michael Alan Hodges, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 21, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION

I, **Gary A. Reys**, certify that:

(1)        I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 of CellCyte Genetics Corporation (the "Report");

(2)        Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

(3)        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

(4)        The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)        Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)        The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:     June 28, 2007.

/s/ "*Gary A. Reys*"
#### § 29.426 Collection of pesticide test samples.

Any lot of tobacco not certified by the importer as being free of prohibited pesticide residues shall be sampled in sufficient detail to determine whether the lot conforms with the pesticide residue standards. Lots of imported tobacco certified by the importer shall be sampled on a random basis and tested to determine whether they conform with the pesticide residue standards.

[51 FR 30199, Aug. 22, 1986]
Appendix E: Staff Interview Protocol

Protocol A:

15 randomly selected staff members making sure that 5 are on the behavior team

These questions are from the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)1and Individual Students 

Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET) 2and stay the same at each wave.

Interviewer_ID: District_ID: School_ID: 

Introduction (introduction will be repeated for each randomly selected staff member at each 

wave; no identifiable information will be collected from the respondent): 

Hi, my name is _________ and I work with the MTSS-B Study about behavior support practices 

at your school. Do you have time to answer a few questions. It should take no more than five 

minutes.

1) What are the __________________ (school rules, high 5's, 3 bee’s)? 

(Define what the acronym means)

2) Have you taught the school rules/behavioral expectations this year? 

3) Have you given out any ___________________________ since _______________? 

 (rewards for appropriate behavior) (2 months ago)

4) What types of student problems do you or would you refer to the office? 

5) What is the procedure for dealing with a stranger with a gun? 

6) Is there a school-wide team that addresses behavioral support in your building?

7) Are you on the team?

Team Member Interview Questions [asked if staff member is on the behavior team]

1) Does your team use discipline data to make decisions? (E4)

2) Has your team taught/reviewed the school-wide program with staff this year? (B3)

3) Who is the team leader/facilitator? (F4)

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about students who need extra support for 

 

1

Sugai et al., 2005 

2 Anderson et al., 2014. 
behavior. 

4) Is there a process for requesting assistance from the team for a student that may need extra 

behavior support? Yes No 

If yes, what is the process? 

__________________________________________________________
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Ewing.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Ewing*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 314.]

(No. 98-715

Submitted May 27, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*316
      *Jonathan E. Goughian,*Disciplinary Counsel, and *Harald F. Craig III,*Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

*Charles W. Ewing, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Orders entered both by the common pleas court and the bankruptcy court specifically prohibited respondent from disbursing legal fees to himself from the trust funds. The order of August 29, 1991 as modified on October 16, 1991 provided that the company would not transfer assets without order of the common pleas court. In entering his 1992 order appointing respondent as counsel in the Chapter 11 case, the bankruptcy judge specifically deleted a paragraph which would have allowed respondent to compensate himself without prior court approval. Respondent therefore knew that the funds he held in his trust account could not be disbursed either to himself as legal fees or to the company for operating expenses without authorization from either the common pleas court which established the fund or the bankruptcy court which controlled the financial reorganization of ARC-O. Nevertheless, respondent chose to violate the orders of both courts.

We agree with the board’s recommendation. Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
---

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 Driftwood Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form
  10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in
  the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, 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.

|Date: August 13, 2007             | 
|--------------------------------- | 
|                                  | 
|                                  | 
|/s/
      Steven Chan             | 
|Steven Chan, President and C.E.O. | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)     | 

---
Editorial Note on Part 3403
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3403 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3403.10 Proposal review. ( a ) The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged.
( b ) All Phase I and II proposals will be evaluated and judged on a competitive basis. Proposals will be initially screened to determine responsiveness. Proposals passing this initial screening will be technically evaluated by scientists to determine the most promising technical and scientific approaches. Each proposal will be judged on its own merit. USDA is under no obligation to fund any proposal or any specific number of proposals in a given topic. It also may elect to fund several or none of the proposed approaches to the same topic or subtopic.
( c ) Phase I and II proposal evaluation criteria will be published in the “Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria” section of the program solicitation.
( d ) External peer reviewers may be used during the technical evaluation stage of this process. Selections will be made from among recognized specialists who are uniquely qualified by training and experience in their respective fields to render expert advice on the merit of proposals received. It is anticipated that such experts will include those located in universities, government, and nonprofit research organizations. If possible, USDA intends that peer review groups shall be balanced with minority and female representation and with an equitable age distribution.
( e ) Reviewers will base their conclusions and recommendations on information contained in the Phase I or Phase II proposal. It cannot be assumed that reviewers are acquainted with any experiments referred to within a proposal, with key individuals, or with the firm itself. Therefore, the proposals should be self-contained and written with the care and thoroughness accorded papers for publication.
( f ) Final decisions will be made by USDA based upon the rating assigned by reviewers in consideration of the technical and commercial potential of the application, duplication of research, any critical USDA requirements, resubmission and budget limitation. In the event that two or more proposals are of approximately equal merit, the existence of a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with a USDA laboratory will be an important consideration. The existence of a follow-on funding commitment for continued development in Phase III will also be an important consideration. The value of any commitment will depend upon the degree of financial commitment made by investors, with the maximum value resulting from a signed agreement with reasonable terms for an amount at least equal to funding requested from USDA in Phase II.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Michael Welsh

3853 Chicago Avenue

Minneapolis, MN 55407

Dear Mr. Welsh:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2812 on July 9, 2015, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### In the Matter of William J. Daetsch, an Attorney.

Order of suspension entered pursuant to section 90 (subd 4, par f) of the Judiciary Law. Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ. (Order entered April 29,1980.)
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-988.

#### Cooper v. United Parcel Serv.

Franklin App. No. 96APD06-824. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio be, and hereby is, granted.

The appeal of United Parcel Service remains pending,
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2466 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2466

   To amend title 18, United States Code to provide for strengthened 
  protections against theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2013

 Ms. Lofgren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code to provide for strengthened 
  protections against theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Private Right of Action Against 
Theft of Trade Secrets Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING PROTOOECOOTION AGAINST THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS.

    Section 1832 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Any person who suffers injury by reason of a violation of 
this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain 
appropriate compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other 
equitable relief. No action may be brought under this subsection unless 
such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained 
of or the date of the discovery of the damage.
    ``(d) For purposes of this section, the term `without 
authorization' shall not mean independent derivation or working 
backwards from a lawfully obtained known product or service to divine 
the process which aided its development or manufacture.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2023209EN.01000801.xml

| 24.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 209/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 209/8

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/482 of 22 March 2021 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 99 I of 22 March 2021
  )

On page 37, in Article 1(1):

for:

‘Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma’,

read:

‘Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP of 22 April 2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma’.

---
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0054n.06 F iled: Janu ary 23, 2007 No. 05-5973 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
BEA TY CHEVROL ET COMPANY, P laintif f-App ellant, HY B , I NC .; H ARPER

VE HI CL ES, L L C, P lai nt iffs, v. NORFO L K SOUTHERN RAI L WAY COMPANY, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: M AR TIN , N ORRI S, A ND G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . B e a ty

Che vr ole t Co mpa

ny a pp e a ls f ro m a g ra nt of summa ry jud g me nt t o de f e n d an t N o r f

o lk So u th e r

n Ra il w ay Co mp an y . Ju r is d ic ti o n is g r o un d e d u p o n d iv ersity

of citizenship. P l aint iff conte nded that a c hemical spill from def endant’ s railroa d equipment approximately

five miles distant damag ed it s proper ty . Howeve r, as the district c ourt proper ly noted, plaintiff’s evide nce a

t best pointed to the po ssi bil ity that defe n d an t ’s conduct caused the damag e, and that wa s insufficient to prove causation under Tenne ssee law
. Havi n g h ad the bene fit of ora l argument and havingcar efully considere d the re cord on appea l, the briefs of the parties, and the applica ble law, we are not persuade d that the district court
err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt to defenda

nt. Be cause the re asoning which supports judg ment for de fenda

nt has bee n articulated by the district court, the issuanc e of a detailed wr itten opinion byNo. 05-5973

Beaty Chev rolet Co. V. Norf olk Southern Railway Co.

- 2 - this court would be duplicative a nd serve no useful purpose
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED up on

the re a so nin g e mp lo y ed by that c ourt

in i ts Memorandum Opinion filed on Ma y 18, 2005.
**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 withthe Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C. Linn,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 

 
| Date:  May 8, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Michael C.  Linn                  |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Michael C. Linn                       |
|                    |   | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----