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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 153 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005 

Ms. PELOSI submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States authorizes the 

House of Representatives to ‘‘determine the Rules of its 

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a 

Member’’; 

Whereas, in 1968, in compliance with this authority and to 

uphold its integrity and ensure that Members act in a 

manner that reflects credit on the House of Representatives, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

was established; 

Whereas the ethics procedures in effect during the 108th 

Congress, and in the three preceding Congresses, were 

enacted in 1997 in a bipartisan manner by an overwhelming vote of the House of Representatives upon the 

bipartisan recommendation of the ten member Ethics Re-
2 

HRES 153 LTH

form Task Force, which conducted a thorough and 

lengthy review of the entire ethics process; 

Whereas in the 109th Congress, for the first time in the history of the House of Representatives, decisions affecting 

the ethics process have been made on a partisan basis 

without consulting the Democratic Members of the Committee or of the House; 

Whereas the Chairman of the Committee, and two of his Republican colleagues, were dismissed from the Committee; 

Whereas, in a statement to the press, the departing Chairman of the Committee stated ‘‘[t]here is a bad perception 

out there that there was a purge in the Committee and 

that people were put in that would protect our side of the 

aisle better than I did,’’ and a replaced Republican Member, also in a statement to the press, referring to his dismissal from the Committee, noted his belief that ‘‘the decision was a direct result of our work in the last session’’; 

Whereas the newly appointed Chairman of the Committee improperly and unilaterally fired nonpartisan Committee 

staff who assisted in the ethics work in the last session; 

and 

Whereas these actions have subjected the Committee to public ridicule, produced contempt for the ethics process, created the public perception that their purpose was to protect a Member of the House, and weakened the ability of 

the Committee to adequately obtain information and 

properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which has 

brought discredit to the House: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Speaker shall appoint a bipartisan 

2 task force with equal representation of the majority and 
3 

HRES 153 LTH

1 minority parties to make recommendations to restore pub2 lic confidence in the ethics process; and be it further 

3 Resolved, That the task force report its findings and 

4 recommendations to the House of Representatives no later 

5 than May 2, 2005. 

Æ
§ 21.51 Maintenance and inspection of records. ( a ) Each individual, corporation, partnership, dedicating entity, or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall prepare and maintain records necessary to accomplish the purposes of this part, specifically— ( 1 ) Retain evaluations of all deviations and failures to comply for a minimum of five years after the date of the evaluation;
( 2 ) Suppliers of basic components must retain any notifications sent to purchasers and affected licensees for a minimum of five years after the date of the notification.
( 3 ) Suppliers of basic components must retain a record of the purchasers of basic components for 10 years after delivery of the basic component or service associated with a basic component.
( 4 ) Applicants for standard design certification under subpart B of part 52 of this chapter and others providing a design which is the subject of a design certification, during and following Commission adoption of a final design certification rule for that design, shall retain any notifications sent to purchasers and affected licensees for a minimum of 5 years after the date of the notification, and retain a record of the purchasers for 15 years after delivery of design which is the subject of the design certification rule or service associated with the design.
( 5 ) Applicants for or holders of a standard design approval under subpart E of part 52 of this chapter and others providing a design which is the subject of a design approval shall retain any notifications sent to purchasers and affected licensees for a minimum of 5 years after the date of the notification, and retain a record of the purchasers for 15 years after delivery of the design which is the subject of the design approval or service associated with the design.
( b ) Each individual, corporation, partnership, dedicating entity, or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall permit the Commission the opportunity to inspect records pertaining to basic components that relate to the identification and evaluation of deviations, and the reporting of defects and failures to comply, including (but not limited to) any advice given to purchasers or licensees on the placement, erection, installation, operation, maintenance, modification, or inspection of a basic component.
[56 FR 36090, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 48374, Sept. 19, 1995; 72 FR 49488, Aug. 28, 2007]
828.7003 Indemnification clause.       The contracting officer shall include the clause, 852.228-72, “Indemnification of Contractor - Hazardous Research Projects” in contracts and solicitations that indemnify a contractor for liability (including reasonable expenses of litigation or settlement) to third person for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property from a risk that the contract defines in the performance work statement, the statement of work, or the statement of objectives as unusually hazardous.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 828.70 - Indemnification of Contractors for Medical Research or Development Contracts
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                   ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
(the "Form 10-QSB") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of Universal
Detection Technology (the "Issuer").

     I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of Issuer certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Date:  November 13, 2005



 /s/ Jacques Tizabi
----------------------------------------------
By:      Jacques Tizabi
Title:   Chief Executive Officer and Acting
         Chief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES HICKMAN HOLLOMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv786-MHT

) (WO) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered

this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the

court as follows:

(1) The petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 18) are

overruled.

(2) The United States Magistrate Judge's

recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is adopted.

(3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No.

1) is denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 20 Filed 10/19/09 Page 1 of 2
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against

petitioner, for which execution may issue.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 19th day of October, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 20 Filed 10/19/09 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 1046
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1046 appear at 88 FR 41295, June 26, 2023.

§ 1046.12 Medical, physical readiness, and training requirements for PF personnel. Department PF personnel must be individuals who: ( a ) Are medically certified by the PPMD pursuant to the procedures set out in § 1046.13 to perform all of the applicable essential functions of the job, as set forth in § 1046.11;
( b ) Meet the physical readiness qualification standards set forth in § 1046.16; and
( c ) Are determined to be qualified as having the knowledge, skills, abilities and completed the requirements of a formal training program as set out in § 1046.16.
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79-2 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79-2 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79-2 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 79-2 Filed 01/06/2007 Page 4 of 4
3015.606-2 Evaluation.

(a) Comprehensive evaluations should be completed within sixty calendar days after making the

initial review determination. If additional time is needed, then the agency contact point shall advise

the offeror accordingly and provide a new evaluation completion date. The evaluating office shall

neither reproduce nor disseminate the proposal to other offices without the consent of the

contracting office from which the proposal was received for evaluation. If the evaluating office

requires additional information from the offeror, the evaluator shall convey this request to the

responsible contracting office. The evaluator shall not directly contact the proposal originator.

(b) If the evaluators recommend accepting the proposal, the responsible contracting officer shall

ensure compliance with all of the requirements of (FAR) 48 CFR 15.607.

Parent topic: Subpart 3015.6—Unsolicited Proposals
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.344 Final decision. ( a ) The Commission will ordinarily consider the whole record on review, but may limit the issues to be reviewed to those identified in an order taking review.
( b ) The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, conclusions and order in the initial decision, and will state the basis of its action. The final decision will be in writing and will include: ( 1 ) A statement of findings and conclusions, with the basis for them on all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented;
( 2 ) All facts officially noticed;
( 3 ) The ruling on each material issue; and
( 4 ) The appropriate ruling, order, or denial of relief, with the effective date.
#### § 984.471 Reports of handler inventory.

Reports of handler inventory as of September 1, January 1, and April 1 of each marketing year shall be submitted to the Board on CWB Form No. 4 for inshell walnuts and on CWB Form No. 5 for shelled walnuts, on or before September 15, January 15, and April 15 respectively, of that marketing year.

[74 FR 56696, Nov. 3, 2009]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CR-209-WKW

 )

)

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR )

ORDER

This case is before the court on three motions made by the defendant. The defendant filed

a motion to continue sentencing and then later moved to withdraw said motion. It is ORDERED that

the motion to withdraw (Doc. # 26) is GRANTED, and, thus, the motion to continue (Doc. # 24) is

mooted. 

Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to

the PSI Report (Doc. # 25), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The deadline for filing

objections is extended from December 27, 2006, to January 17, 2007.

DONE this 16th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1


             CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and
acting Chief Executive Officer of Techdyne, Inc. , a Florida corporation (the
"Company") and hereby further certifies as follows:

                  (1) The periodic report containing financial statements to
which this certificate is an exhibit 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 periodic report to which
this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

         In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.


August 14, 2003                            /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Barry J. Pardon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
PUBLIC LAW 109–447—DEC. 22, 2006 120 STAT. 3327

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 101:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Nov. 15, considered and passed House.

Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–447

109th Congress

Joint Resolution

Appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the One Hundred

Tenth Congress.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first

regular session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress shall begin

at noon on Thursday, January 4, 2007.

Approved December 22, 2006.

Dec. 22, 2006

[H.J. Res. 101]
SUBCHAPTER G—CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT

PART 1242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

PART 1245 [RESERVED]

PART 1246—QUALITY ASSURANCE

PART 1247—TRANSPORTATION

PART 1242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

Subpart 1242.1—Contract Audit Services

1242.101 Contract audit responsibilities.

1242.102 Assignment of contract audit services.

1242.170 Contract clause.

Subpart 1242.2—Contract Administration Services

1242.270 Contract clauses.

Subpart 1242.3—Contract Administration Office Functions

1242.302 Contract administration functions.

Subpart 1242.15—Contractor Performance Information

1242.1503 Procedures.

PART 1245 [RESERVED]

PART 1246—QUALITY ASSURANCE

Subpart 1246.1—General

1246.101 Definitions.

1246.101-70 Additional definitions.

Subpart 1246.7—Warranties

1246.705-70 Limitations—restrictions.

1246.706-70 Warranty terms and conditions—requirements.

PART 1247—TRANSPORTATION

Subpart 1247.5—Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels

1247.506 Procedures.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 7 1 1

M ONTGOM ERY, ALA BA M A 36101 -0711

DEBRA P. HA CKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (3 3 4 ) 9 5 4 -3 6 0 0

June 18, 2008

NOTICE OF DOCKETING ERROR

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case Style: Ernest Reed, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al.

Case Number: 2:06-cv-763-WKW

Docket Entry Number: #13 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

The above referenced Motion was filed in this closed case which was transferred to District of

Minnesota on 11/6/2006. The docket entry has been STRICKEN from the record as a docketing

error and the parties are instructed to disregard the entry on the court’s docket for this case. 

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 14 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.331 Oral argument before the presiding officer.

When, in the opinion of the presiding officer, time permits and the nature of the proceeding and the public interest warrant, the presiding officer may allow, and fix a time for, the presentation of oral argument. The presiding officer will impose appropriate limits of time on the argument. The transcript of the argument is part of the record.
#### Joseph Profit, Appellant, v. Michael Kisiel et al., Constituting the Board of Election of Niagara County, and Charles Cantara, Jr., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (Order entered June 9, 1969.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Special Term declaring petition valid.) Present — Del Veeehio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
§ 20.1202 Compliance with requirements for summation of external and internal doses. ( a ) If the licensee is required to monitor under both §§ 20.1502 (a) and (b), the licensee shall demonstrate compliance with the dose limits by summing external and internal doses. If the licensee is required to monitor only under § 20.1502(a) or only under § 20.1502(b), then summation is not required to demonstrate compliance with the dose limits. The licensee may demonstrate compliance with the requirements for summation of external and internal doses by meeting one of the conditions specified in paragraph (b) of this section and the conditions in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. (Note:
The dose equivalents for the lens of the eye, the skin, and the extremities are not included in the summation, but are subject to separate limits.)
( b ) *Intake by inhalation.* If the only intake of radionuclides is by inhalation, the total effective dose equivalent limit is not exceeded if the sum of the deep-dose equivalent divided by the total effective dose equivalent limit, and one of the following, does not exceed unity: ( 1 ) The sum of the fractions of the inhalation ALI for each radionuclide, or
( 2 ) The total number of derived air concentration-hours (DAC-hours) for all radionuclides divided by 2,000, or
( 3 ) The sum of the calculated committed effective dose equivalents to all significantly irradiated[1] organs or tissues (T) calculated from bioassay data using appropriate biological models and expressed as a fraction of the annual limit.
( c ) *Intake by oral ingestion.* If the occupationally exposed individual also receives an intake of radionuclides by oral ingestion greater than 10 percent of the applicable oral ALI, the licensee shall account for this intake and include it in demonstrating compliance with the limits.
( d ) *Intake through wounds or absorption through skin.* The licensee shall evaluate and, to the extent practical, account for intakes through wounds or skin absorption.
Note:
The intake through intact skin has been included in the calculation of DAC for hydrogen-3 and does not need to be further evaluated.
[56 FR 23396, May 21, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 57878, Dec. 8, 1992] Footnotes -
20.1202
[1] An organ or tissue is deemed to be significantly irradiated if, for that organ or tissue, the product of the weighting factor, wT, and the committed dose equivalent, HT,50, per unit intake is greater than 10 percent of the maximum weighted value of HT,50, (*i.e.*, WT HT,50) per unit intake for any organ or tissue.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 10769 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket 5:12

- cr
- 00070

- AKK

- TMP

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ERASMO MOLINA , a.k.a. Erasom Molina, a.k.a. Memo, Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________ (September 25, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM:
James L. O’Kelley , appointed counsel for Erasmo Molina in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

Case: 13-10769 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 1 of 22 and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that
counsel ’ s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,
counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Molina ’ s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 13-10769 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
#### § 205.388 Enforcement.

In accordance with available enforcement authorities, the Secretary may take or seek enforcement action against any entity subject to an emergency order who fails to comply with the terms of that emergency order.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 315 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 315

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 16, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INS. CO., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv717-ID

v. )

 )

CAROL THORN, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s Motion To Invest Funds, filed August 11,

2006, it is ORDERED that said Motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. It is

further CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the clerk place these funds in an appropriate

interest bearing account. 

Done this 17th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1