alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 130

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 20, 2005.

Whereas for over 100 years, our Nation has been improved

by the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration systems that keep our buildings warm in the winter and cool in the summer;

Whereas the contractors that install heating, ventilation, air

conditioning, and refrigeration systems are comprised of

small businesses located in all 50 States;

Whereas according to the Office of Advocacy at the Small

Business Administration, small businesses represent 99.7

percent of all employers and employ half of all private

sector employees;

Whereas the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration industry is a growing field that continues to create jobs and grow small businesses;

Whereas indoor environmental systems have saved millions of

lives and improved the health of our citizens;

Whereas because of environmental systems, food is preserved,

modern medicine is possible, and children breathe easier;

Whereas the men and women who design, manufacture, install, and maintain heating, ventilation, air conditioning,

and refrigeration systems play a crucial role in our economy;
2

•HRES 130 EH

Whereas professional certified technicians save the Nation

millions of dollars each year through the design and installation of more efficient equipment that provides essential comfort while reducing energy usage; and

Whereas the Air Conditioning Contractors of America have

proposed designating the week of April 17–23, 2005, as

National Indoor Comfort Week: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes the contributions that environmental

systems have made to the quality of life of all Americans;

(2) commends the technicians who install and maintain environmental systems;

(3) recognizes that these small business contractors

have benefited from the reduced regulatory burden provided as a result of passage of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA);

(4) commends small business air conditioning contractors for participating in the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration panels required by SBREFA to

better educate regulators on the effect of Federal rules

on small businesses;

(5) recognizes that small business air conditioning

contractors have actively supported the Section 7(a) loan

guarantee program administered by the Small Business

Administration; and
3

•HRES 130 EH

(6) supports the goals and ideals of National Indoor

Comfort Week, as proposed by the Air Conditioning

Contractors of America.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### In the Matter of Earl Gurley, Jr., Appellant, v Alice Sachs et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Alexander Castillo, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on April 9, 1980, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Birns, Fein, Sandler and Silverman, JJ.

Kupferman, J. P.,

dissents, on the law, and would reverse and remand. The appellant candidate having presented an explanation for the alterations and changes should not have been found out of hand to have petitions permeated with fraud. The objector should have been required to go forward with some evidence of fraud.
#### § 1040.65 Procedures.

The procedural provisions applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are adopted and incorporated in this section by reference. These procedures may be found in subparts G and H of this part.
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarter Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rod Lynam, Chief Financial Office of 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



/s/ Rod Lynam
-------------
Rod Lynam
Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2006
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary A. Angelo, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 11, 1980. Following a hearing held on October 25, 1979, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant lost her employment due to misconduct in connection therewith and was thus disqualified from receiving benefits. On this appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s determination, claimant argues that her actions did not constitute misconduct and that the procedure employed at the hearing did not comport with due process. Claimant’s employer was not present at the October 25, 1979 hearing when claimant testified. At the conclusion of claimant’s testimony, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed claimant and closed the hearing. After claimant had left the premises, the employer’s representative appeared and was allowed to testify after the Administrative Law Judge reopened the hearing. This was improper since it prohibited claimant from exercising her right of cross-examination (State Administrative Procedure Act, § 306, subd 3; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; see *Matter of Simpson v Wolansky,*38 NY2d 391, 395). Since we cannot say that, absent the testimony of the employer’s representative, there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of misconduct, the decision denying claimant benefits must be annulled and the matter remitted for a new hearing. Decision reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.68


 


Amendment to Loan Agreement


 


This Amendment to Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”)
is entered into on October 11, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Law Insurance Broker Co., Ltd., (“Party
A”) and Action Holdings Financial Limited, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of British Virgin
Islands (“Party B”). For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties may individually be referred to as “Party”
or collectively be referred to as “Parties”, as case may be.


 


WHEREAS, Party A and Party B are parties to a loan agreement
with the effective date of October 11, 2016 with certain loan amount at NTD70,000,000 (“Loan Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties would like to amend the terms and conditions
contained in the Loan Agreement through this Amendment.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Loan Agreement
as follows:


 


		1.	Term
for the Loan Agreement shall be extended from October 11, 2017 to October 10, 2018 (the “Extended Term”)


 


		2.	The
fixed interest rate shall be increased from 2.0% to 2.5% for such Extended Term.


 


		3.	The
accrued interest for the term of Loan Agreement (from October 11, 2016 to October 10, 2017) shall be made by Party B by December
31, 2017.


 


		4.	The
principal amount of the Loan Agreement together with the accrued interest for the Extended Term shall be paid in one lump sum
before October 10, 2018.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Amendment,
or have caused this Amendment to be duly executed on their behalf, as of the date first above written. This Agreement is executed
in duplicate, with each Party holding one original.


 


Party A (Lender):


For and on behalf of


Law Insurance Broker Co., Ltd. (seal)


/s/ Shu-Fen Lee


Authorized representative: Shu-Fen Lee


No: 86300857


 


Party B (Borrower):


For and on behalf of


Action Holdings Financial Limited (seal)


/s/ Mao Yi-Hsiao


Authorized representative: Mao Yi-Hsiao


No. 53675377
#### Nob Hill Condominium, Section I, Appellant, v Susan Garrahan, Respondent.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 11, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d 630.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
PART 744—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES       Source:                            77 FR 8171, Feb. 14, 2012, unless otherwise noted.          Authority:                            Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87–195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.                                       Subpart 744.2—Consent to Subcontracts                                                         744.202-170 Partner vetting.    **Parent topic:** SUBCHAPTER G—CONTRACT MANAGEMENTSubpart 744.2—Consent to Subcontracts    744.202-170 Partner vetting.       If an acquisition is identified as subject to partner vetting, see (48 CFR) AIDAR 704.70 for the applicable procedures and requirements.
§ 1013.35 The record. ( a ) The hearing will be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts may be obtained following the hearing from the ALJ at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of duplication.
( b ) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the ALJ and the authority head.
( c ) The record may be inspected and copied (upon payment of a reasonable fee) by anyone, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 1013.24 of this part.
H. Res. 1052

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 28, 2006.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5825) to update the 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In lieu of the 

amendments recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now 

printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) 90 minutes of debate, with 60 minutes equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; 

and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 
2

•HRES 1052 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5825 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Subpart 433.1 - Protests

Parent topic: PART 433 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES AND APPEALS

433.102 General.

(a) The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is responsible for coordinating the handling of bid

protests lodged with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

(b) The head of the contracting activity (HCA), on a non-delegable basis, may resolve protests and

authorize reimbursement of costs in accordance with FAR 33.102(b).

433.103 Protests to the agency.

(a) Actual or prospective bidders or offerors may file protests either with the HCA, as provided by

433.102(b), or with the contracting officer. Protesters who file protests with the HCA shall furnish a

complete copy to the contracting officer no later than 1 day after the protest is filed with the HCA.

(b) When a protest is received, the adjudicating official shall take prompt action towards resolution

and notify the protester in writing of the action taken. The written final decision shall include a

paragraph substantially as follows:

This decision shall be final and conclusive unless a further written notice of protest is filed with the

Government Accountability Office in accordance with 4 CFR part 21. Neither the filing of a protest

with USDA nor the filing of a protest with the Government Accountability Office affects your right to

file an action in a district court of the United States or the United States Court of Federal Claims.

433.104 [Reserved]
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 on Form 10-Q of Universal Detection Technology (the "Registrant") for the period ending June 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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:  (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 Registrant.  Date: December 31, 2015  By: /s/ Jacques Tizabi Jacques Tizabi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Delores Spriggs, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 1, 1965, affirmed. No opinion. Ughetta, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Munder, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to deny defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the search and seizure herein was proper as incidental to a lawful arrest. The evidence at the hearing establishes that defendant attempted *853to hide her poeketbook at the approach of the arresting officer and that she admitted to him it contained a gun. Under the circumstances, we find this constituted reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that a crime was committed in his presence. The subsequent search and seizure, which immediately preceded the formal arrest, was not invalidated since at the time thereof the officer had probable cause to make the arrest (cf. *People*v. *Glover,*17 N Y 2d 429, 430).
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.179 Refusal of renewal, suspension, or revocation of licenses for cause. ( a ) *General.* A license may be suspended or revoked or may be refused renewal or return (if suspended) for causes prescribed in section 9 of the Act.
( b ) *Procedure for summary action.* Under section 9 of the Act, any license may, without first affording the licensee (hereafter in this section the “respondent”) an opportunity for a hearing, be summarily suspended pending final determination, whenever the action is considered to be in the best interest of the official inspection system. Such action shall be effective upon receipt of notice from the Service by the respondent. Within 30 calendar days after issuing a notice of summary action, the Service shall afford the respondent an opportunity for a hearing as provided under paragraph (c) of this section. Pending final determination, the Service may terminate the action if alternative employment arrangements satisfactory to the Service can be and are made for the respondent by the employer of the respondent.
( c ) *Procedure for other than summary action.* Except as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, before the Service refuses to renew, or suspends or revokes a license, or refuses to return a suspended license, the respondent shall be ( 1 ) notified of the proposed action and the reasons therefor, and
( 2 ) afforded ( i ) an opportunity to express his/her views on the proposed action in an informal manner, or
( ii ) at the request of the respondent, a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary under Various Statutes (7 CFR, part 1, subpart H).
§ 984.459 Reports of interhandler transfers. ( a ) Any handler who transfers walnuts to another handler within the State of California shall submit to the Board, not later than 10 calendar days following such transfer, a report showing the following: ( 1 ) The date of transfer;
( 2 ) The net weight, in pounds, of the walnuts transferred;
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) Whether such walnuts were inshell or shelled;
( 5 ) The name and address of the transferring handler; and
( 6 ) The name and address of the receiving handler.
( b ) The transferring handler shall send two copies of the report to the receiving handler at the time the report is submitted to the Board. The receiving handler shall certify, on one copy of the report, to the receipt of such walnuts and submit it to the Board within 10 calendar days after the walnuts, or copies of such report, have been received, whichever is later.
[65 FR 39286, June 26, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 56750, Aug. 21, 2023]
#### § 986.39 Trade supply.

*Trade supply* means the quantity of merchantable inshell or shelled pecans that growers will supply to handlers during a fiscal year for sale in the United States and abroad or, in the absence of handler regulations § 986.69 setting forth minimum grade regulations for merchantable pecans, the sum of handler-cleaned and grower-cleaned production.
#### ALTORIA REALTY & CONST. CO., Respondent, v. DELACEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by the Altoria Realty & Construction Company against Peter Delacey.

C. A. Winter, of New York City, for appellant.

H. Asher, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### § 1002.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to describe the official seal and distinguishing flag of the Department of Energy, and to prescribe rules for their custody and use.
#### Moses Asch, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, entered, in this personal injury action, on October 4, 1968, granting leave to- add plaintiff’s wife as a party plaintiff herein and to serve an amended complaint asserting a cause of action for loss of consortium, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. The accident giving rise to this action occurred on October 21, 1966. It was not until August 20, 1968 that the present motion was made. Accordingly, the wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium is time barred against the city by virtue of section 50-i of the General Municipal Law which requires that an action against the city “ shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based ”. Such a claim may not now be asserted in this action by virtue of *Millington*v. *Southeastern Elevator Go.*(22 N Y 2d 498, 507-508) wherein it was specifically stated that: — “ Where there is a cause of action * * * pending, the wife’s consortium action, *if not time-barred,*should be joined with her husband’s claim”. (Emphasis added.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.11 Producer.

*Producer* means any person engaged in a proprietary capacity in the production of grapes which are sun-dried or dehydrated by artificial means until they become raisins.

[83 FR 53968, Oct. 26, 2018]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James W. Dolan, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)              presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date:  August 23, 2004 | By:    |   /s/ James W. Dolan                |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   James  W. Dolan                        |
|                   |   |   Chief  Financial and Operating Officer |

 

1

----