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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 81 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 81

          Designating the oak as the national arboreal emblem.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 1993

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Bradley) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
          Designating the oak as the national arboreal emblem.

Whereas the oak has more than three hundred species native to North America;
Whereas the oak is grown today in every State;
Whereas the oak represents durability and longevity;
Whereas the fruit of the oak, the acorn, was used as food by early native 
        Americans;
Whereas in a pool conducted by the International Society of Aboriculture, the 
        oak was selected by a majority of people as the tree that symbolizes the 
        United States;
Whereas the oak has been renowned in art, music, and literature; and
Whereas it is fitting and proper that the United States have a national arboreal 
        emblem: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That the tree commonly known as the oak is designated and adopted as 
the national arboreal emblem of the United States, and the President is 
authorized and requested to declare such fact by proclamation.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      891
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,942
<PP&E>                                             123
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,157)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 767 

To preserve access to abortion medications. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Ms. BUSH (for herself, Ms. OMAR, Mr. SOTO, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. NORTON, Mr. BEYER, and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To preserve access to abortion medications. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Access to 

5 Medication Abortion Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF REMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

8 Human Services (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Sec9 retary’’) shall ensure that the risk evaluation and mitiga10 tion strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 767 IH

1 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1) that applies 

2 to mifepristone— 

3 (1) does not have an in-person dispensing re4 quirement for such drug; 

5 (2) allows for patient access to prescriptions for 

6 such drug via telehealth; and 

7 (3) allows all pharmacies that are certified to 

8 dispense such drug to, at minimum, dispense and 

9 mail such drug to patients. 

10 (b) MODIFICATIONS.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall 

11 be construed to prevent the Secretary from approving a 

12 modification to the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy 

13 for mifepristone based on sound scientific evidence and in 

14 accordance with section 505–1(h) of the Federal Food, 

15 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1(h)), except 

16 that any modifications to such risk evaluation and mitiga17 tion strategy made after January 3, 2023, shall be in ac18 cordance with the requirements under paragraphs (1), (2), 

19 and (3) of subsection (a), unless the Secretary, based on 

20 sound scientific evidence and in accordance with section 

21 505–1 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1), determines that 

22 a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for mifepristone 

23 is no longer necessary. 

24 (c) CLARIFICATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall 

25 be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary to imVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:05 Feb 24, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H767.IH H767

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 767 IH

1 pose the requirements described in paragraphs (1), (2), 

2 and (3) of such subsection to a risk evaluation and mitiga3 tion strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, 

4 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1) for any drug 

5 other than mifepristone. 

6 (d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term 

7 ‘‘mifepristone’’ means mifepristone that is— 

8 (1) approved under subsection (c) or (j) of sec9 tion 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

10 Act (21 U.S.C. 355); 

11 (2) indicated for medical abortion; and 

12 (3) subject to a risk evaluation and mitigation 

13 strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, 

14 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[115th Congress Public Law 13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 77]]

Public Law 115-13
115th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education 
  relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and 
  Secondary Education Act of 1965. <<NOTE: Mar. 27, 2017 -  [H.J. Res. 
                                 57]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability 
and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 86076 (November 29, 2016)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

    Approved March 27, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 57:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            Feb. 7, considered and passed House.
            Mar. 8, 9, considered and passed Senate.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2017):
            Mar. 27, Presidential remarks.

                                  <all>
```
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 Fonix Corporation on Form 10-Q for
        the
        period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Murdock, 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 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.
 
 
 **/s/
                  THOMAS A. MURDOCK**Thomas
                  A. MurdockChief
                  Executive Officer
 Dated
        August 10, 2006
### No. 12790 IN

### THE SUPREME COURT OF 

### THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975

ROBERT A. 

### RONSHAUGEN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs

# - RAMSEY ENGINEERING CO. et 

### al., Employer, and NATIONAL BEN 

### FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of 

### the Thirteenth Judicial District, Hon. Robert 

### H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: 

### Lee Overfeldt argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Pedersen and Herndon, Billings, Montana Donald R. 

### Herndon argued, Billings, Montana

Submitted: January 22, 1975 Decided: 

## 6.E'B 1 4

## 1975Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This isan appeal from the district court, Yellowstone County, ina workmen's compensation matter. It appears that claimant sustained a compensable injury; hismedical billswere paid and he received temporary total disabilitybenefits for a short period of 

### timeand then returned towork. The only issue
on appeal iswhether or not claimant suffered a loss of earning capacity on the open labor market and is entitled tobe further compensated. The matter was heard by theWorkmen's Compensation Division and the hearings officer ruled the claimant 

### was entitled to medical benefits, nominal disability indemnity award, and further provided that since his capacity toearn wages had not yet been diminished the case would remain under the continuing jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Division. An application for rehearing 

### was filed, denied, and an appeal was taken tothe districtcourt. In the districtcourt the matter was submitted upon the evidence taken before the hearings officer and thereafter an order was entered denying the relief sought; this appeal followed. It is conceded thatclaimant Ronshaugen isnow employed inthe same capacity he was before the injury and hispresent earnings arehigher than they were before the injury. However, it 

### ishis contention that he has maintained this employment only because of the gratuitous assistance of his coemployees and the indulgence of his employer. Ronshaugen relies on Infelt v. Horen, 136 Mont. 217, 346 P.2d 556. In that case the employee returned towork shortly afterhis injurybut he was only able tocontinue with hiswork by reason of assistance from his fellowworkers and his brother. He paid his brother $30 per week out 

### of his averaged earnings of $100 per week, and that fact was taken intoconsideration by thisCourt in sustaining an award. This is clearlydistinguishable from the facts inthiscase. We observe no error on the part of theWorkmen's Compensation Division or the district court. The appellant urges that even though there has been no pecuniary loss resulting from the injury, that he has shown a loss of abilitytoearn in the open labor market. (Shaffer

### v. Midland Empire Pack. Co., 127 Mont. 211, 259 P.2d 340) Inthiscause the awarding of nominal disabilitybenefits and retaining jurisdiction inthe event there should be a subsequent loss of earning capacity was the proper way for the workman -W- be protected and the,brder of the district court is affirmed,

Chief Justice

Justices
**Exhibit32**

## **CERTIFICATION**

**Theundersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:**

(1)                                The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

(2)                                The information contained in the accompanying Reportfairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | June 5, 2007 |                                   |   | /s/ Rodney A. Young |   |
|--------|--------------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   |         | Rodney A. Young                        |
|   |         | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Date:  | June 5, 2007 |                     |   | /s/ Dale H. Johnson |   |
|--------|--------------|--------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   |         | Dale H. Johnson          |
|   |         | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2



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 Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned 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 the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2004 and for the period then ended.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/s/ STANLEY J. OLANDER, JR.                    
|                                               
|Stanley J. Olander, Jr. Chief Financial Officer



May 6, 2004



31
**Exhibit 34.15**

**CURCIO**

**+COHEN**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the“Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securitiestransactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selected sample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered bythis report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B toManagement’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects. 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen, CPA’s, P.C. 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017 

 
CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS PC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001 

TEL: 212 557-9800 FAX: 212 557 9819    WEBSITE:WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD DONALD CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-138, CA-96-61-3-P) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Donald Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Campbell , Nos. CR-93-138; CA-96-61-3-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1996). We further deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. _______________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

Skyview Innovation Technology/Kevin Jones

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

SECTIONS 14 C.F.R 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) 

& (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF THE

DJI Inspire, DJI Phantom, & DJI S1000 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM

PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Submitted on April 22, 2015

Kevin Jones/ Owner

Skyview Innovation Technology

P.O. Box 3052

Elida, Ohio 45807

567-825-6530

skyviewinnovation@gmail.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q
PERIOD ENDED DEC. 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                       808
<INVENTORY>                                      9,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,633
<PP&E>                                          61,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,064
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,653
<SALES>                                          5,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,457
<CGS>                                            3,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    41
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
§ 1.481-6 Effective dates; applicability dates. ( a ) Sections 1.481-1, 1.481-2, 1.481-3, and 1.481-4 are effective for Consent Agreements signed on or after December 27, 1994. For Consent Agreements signed before December 27, 1994, see §§ 1.481-1, 1.481-2, 1.481-3, 1.481-4, and 1.481-5 as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised as of April 1, 1995.
( b ) Section 1.481-5 applies to taxable years beginning October 20, 2020. However, a corporation may choose to apply the rules in §§ 1.481-5, 1.1371-1, and 1.1371-2 in their entirety to taxable years beginning on or before October 20, 2020. If a corporation makes the choice described in the previous sentence, the corporation must continue to apply the rules in §§ 1.481-5, 1.1371-1, and 1.1371-2 in their entirety for the corporation's subsequent taxable years.
[T.D. 9914, 85 FR 66478, Oct. 20, 2020]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0155

IN THE MATTER OF:

C.L.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 18, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2020

08/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0155
#### § 1.367(a)-5 [Reserved]