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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8088 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8088

To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service 
    for co-payments of medical appointments required as part of the 
          Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2024

Mr. Finstad (for himself and Ms. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service 
    for co-payments of medical appointments required as part of the 
          Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.

    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 ``Applicant Medical Reimbursement Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT OF APPLICANTS FOR UNIFORM MILITARY SERVICE FOR 
              CO-PAYS OF MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS REQUIRED AS PART OF MEPS 
              PROCESS.

    The Secretary of Defense is authorized to reimburse applicants for 
uniformed military service for up to $100 per applicant for co-payment 
costs incurred by such applicants for medical appointments required as 
part of the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000855585
<NAME>                        FONIX CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,048,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  352,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,894
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,410,215
<PP&E>                                       3,087,295
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,740,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,398,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,810,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 21,205,530
<COMMON>                                         8,375
<OTHER-SE>                                 (11,427,346)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,786,559
<SALES>                                        351,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,083
<CGS>                                           21,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,778,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,314,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (19,871,411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (19,871,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 662,920
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                372,061
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (18,836,430)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.31)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00290-CR

RACHAEL ANNE SHOEMAKER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 43rd DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s AMotion To Dismiss Appeal.@ The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 9, 2010 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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 Itec Environmental Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael E. Hofmann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael E. Hofmann
----------------------
Michael E. Hofmann
Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5170 Breast milk immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A breast milk immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the breast milk proteins.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 63007, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38793, July 25, 2001]
612 P.2d 506

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Damon Keith FISHER, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1928.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

April 10, 1980.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1980.

Review Denied June 17, 1980.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Diane M. Ramsey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Robert Duber, II, Globe, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Fisher was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary and sentenced to 15 years in the Arizona State Prison.

He has presented three questions for review, none of which merits reversal. The record shows that Fisher was apprehended during a burglary. He was armed with a loaded and cocked revolver which had no firing pin. Fisher did not testify at trial. His confession which was admitted into evidence, states, inter alia:

> “ . . . So we broke into the store and were in the process of getting food and liquor to sell when a man pulled a gun on us. I had a gun but couldn’t use it or wouldn’t use it. . ”

The only issue in the case is whether the revolver was “permanently inoperable” because it did not have a firing pin. If it was, then the revolver was not a firearm and not a deadly weapon thus precluding a conviction of first-degree burglary.1 A deputy sheriff testified that the revolver was only temporarily inoperable and could be made operable by the insertion of a firing pin. He also said a nail could be used as a firing pin. It is clear that the revolver was not permanently inoperable and the evidence supports the conviction.

The owner of the premises testified that after he apprehended Fisher and his companions, Fisher asked him not to tell the police about the revolver. Fisher also said that he had just been released from prison. Fisher moved for a mistrial because of the *51reference to prison. This motion was denied and Fisher claims error. Assuming arguendo that the evidence was inadmissible, we find no prejudicial error in view of the overwhelming evidence against Fisher.

Fisher argues that he was denied equal protection under the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He contends that if he had been charged with third-degree burglary under A.R.S. Sec. 13-1506 instead of first-degree burglary under A.R.S. Sec. 13-1508, the enhancement provisions of A.R.S. Sec. 13-604 relative to the use of deadly weapons would have entitled him to a lower presumptive sentence. This argument is without substance and shows no denial of equal protection.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.

1

. Under A.R.S. Sec. 13-1508 a person is guilty of first-degree burglary if he is armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. For definition of the terms “firearm” and “deadly weapon” see A.R.S. Sec. 13-105(12) and (9) respectively. A revolver which is “permanently inoperable” is not a firearm under A.R.S. Sec. 13-105(12).
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 127

To print as a Senate document a collection of statements made in tribute

to the late First Lady of the United States, Patricia Ryan Nixon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30, 1993

Mr. COCHRAN (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To print as a Senate document a collection of statements

made in tribute to the late First Lady of the United

States, Patricia Ryan Nixon.

1 Resolved, That there shall be printed as a Senate doc2 ument a collection of statements made in tribute to the

3 late First Lady of the United States, Patricia Ryan Nixon,

4 together with appropriate illustrations and other materials

5 relating to her death.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1840 Radiographic film. ( a ) *Identification.* Radiographic film is a device that consists of a thin sheet of radiotransparent material coated on one or both sides with a photographic emulsion intended to record images during diagnostic radiologic procedures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 38819, July 25, 2001]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1361

DIRECTV INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAY JONES, Defendant - Appellant, and RON CAROLINA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3542-AW) Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: September 16, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Robert Rubin, SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jay Jones appeals the district court clerk’s order of default. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Consumers Union agrees that airline passengers have rights and should be able to expect fair and reasonable treatment when they fly.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6030 Oral cavity abrasive polishing agent. ( a ) *Identification.* An oral cavity abrasive polishing agent is a device in paste or powder form that contains an abrasive material, such as silica pumice, intended to remove debris from the teeth. The abrasive polish is applied to the teeth by a handpiece attachment (prophylaxis cup).
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38799, July 25, 2001]
§ 1.381(c)(26)-1 Credit for employment of certain new employees. ( a ) *Carryovers and carrybacks.* For taxable years beginning before January 1, 1984, the computation of carryovers and carrybacks of unused targeted jobs credit (new jobs credit in the case of wages paid before 1979) under section 44B (as in effect prior to enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1984) in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies shall be made under the principles of § 1.381(c)(23)-1 (relating to the computation of carryovers and carrybacks of unused investment credit), except that the provisions of paragraph (c)(4) and paragraph (e)(6), (7) and (8) of such section shall not apply.
( b ) *Other items.* See § 1.51-1(h) for a rule that applies to certain transfers of a trade or business in which a member of a targeted group is employed.
[T.D. 8062, 50 FR 46003, Nov. 6, 1985]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 94 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 94

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 1993

       Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To designate the week of October 3, 1993, through October 9, 1993, as 
                  ``National Customer Service Week''.

Whereas recognition of the value and importance of the customer raises the 
        quality of customer service;
Whereas the high cost of attracting new customers today heightens the need for 
        companies to keep existing customers through effective customer service;
Whereas recognition of the contributions made by customer service to the 
        profitability of a company increases the professional status of customer 
        service;
Whereas excellent customer service distinguishes successful companies that 
        understand the important influence a customer has on the success of a 
        company; and
Whereas excellent customer service can contribute to the growth and success of 
        every company: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week of October 3, 
1993, through October 9, 1993, is designated as ``National Customer 
Service Week''. The President is authorized and requested to issue a 
proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the 
week with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

            Passed the Senate September 10 (legislative day, September 
      7), 1993.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Order entered July 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00651-CV

HI SOON AND YOUNG SHIN PARK, Appellants

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, AS TRUST/TRUSTEE OF ABFC 2004-OPT2 TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-02647

ORDER

The clerk’s record is two months overdue in this appeal. Appellants’ docketing statement 

reflects that appellants have both requested the clerk’s record and made payment arrangements 

for the record.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within 

FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either the clerk’s record or written verification that 

appellants have not paid for the record. We notify appellants that if we receive verification of 

non-payment, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Civil 

Records Division, and to counsel for all parties. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
TSD Appendix B 

ConocoPhillips Subject-to-BART Heaters Emissions (lb/hr) 

EPN Description NOX (lb/hr) SO2 (lb/hr) 

100-H-1 Coker Charge Storage Heater 1.1684 0.3197 

292-H-1 

Light Distillate Gulfiner Reactor 

Heater 

4.7289 0.7383 

292-H-2 Light Distillate Gulfiner 

Stabilizer Heater 8.0138 1.2982 

1291-H-2/3 FCCU Light/Heavy Feed Heater 71.0109 5.3903 

191-H-2 Vacuum Charge Heater 44.7097 11.9380 

891-H-1 Delayed Coker Charge Heater 41.1493 7.1165 

491-H-l Alkylation Isostripper Reboiler 47.7521 6.4044 

491-H-2 Alkylation Depropanizer 

Reboiler 6.2832 8.0248 

293-H-I 

Heavy Distillate Gulfiner 

Reactor Feed Heater 

7.9697 1.4381 

293-H-2 Heavy Distillate Gulfiner 

Stabilizer Reboiler 

15.0796 1.8236 

1391-H-1 Catalytic Reformer Feed Heater 

No. 1 14.8812 10.1413 

l391-H-2/3 Catalytic Reformer Feed Heater 

Nos. 2&3 

71.5400 10.0090 

1391-H-4 Depentanizer Reboiler 1.1354 5.6879 

1391-H-5 Dry Reactivation Heater 25.3532 0.3086 
2

1791-H-1 Reformate Splitter Reboiler 7.3414 3.6487 

I792-H-l Hydrodealkylation Charge 

Heater 26.1799 4.9384 

291-H-l Naphiner Reactor Feed Heater 20.6353 3.7809 

291-H-2 Naphiner Deisohexanizer 

Reboiler 1.1684 2.9762
Número Identificador

RES 20 2 4

________________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL I X

JULIANA DEL TORO VARGAS

Peticionari a

SOUTH WEST HEALTH C ORPORATION H/N/C
HOSPITAL METRO Y OTROS

Recurridos KL CE20 2 4 00016 Certiorari procedente del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Mayagüez

C aso Núm

. :

MZ2023CV00438 (SALÓN 307)

Sobre:

D espido Injustificado (Ley Núm. 80) y otros

Panel integrado por su president e , el J uez Rodríguez Casillas , el J uez Salgado Schwarz y el Juez Ronda Del
Toro

.
Salgado Schwarz, Carlos G., Juez Ponente.



## RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 11 enero de 202 4

.
Comparece ante nos la Sra. Juliana Del Toro Vargas

(señora Del Toro Vargas o Peticionaria) y solicita que

revoquemos una Orden emitida por el Tribunal de Primera

Instancia, Sala Superior de Mayagüez (TPI o foro

primario) el 28 de diciembre de 2023, notific ada el 29

de diciembre. Mediante el referido dictamen, el TPI

ordenó lo siguiente:

Se ordena a la Parte Querellante prestar fianza de no residente por la cantidad de dos mil dólares ($2,000.00) de conformidad con la Regla 69.5 de Procedimiento Civil,

en un término de 60 días.

Una vez prestada la fianza no residente continuarán los procedimientos.

Se apercibe a la parte que incumplir con la orden del Tribunal conllevará la desestimación del pleito.

Luego de deliberar los méritos del recurso ante

nos, ente ndemos procedente no intervenir con la decisiónKLCE202 400016 2

recurrida. Si bien este foro apelativo no está obligado

a fundamentar su determinación al denegar la expedición

de un recurso discrecional, 1 abundamos sobre las bases

de nuestra decisión para que las partes no alberguen

dudas en sus mentes sobre el ejercicio de nuestra

facultad revisora y su justificación jurídica.

Conforme a lo anterior, expresamos que no surge del

expediente de este caso que el TPI actuase mediando

prejuicio, parcialidad, error manifiesto o mediante

craso abuso de su discreción. 2 Tampoco divisamos

fundamentos jurídicos que motiven la expedición del auto

instado al amparo de los criterios dispuestos por la

Regla 40 del Reglamento de este Tribunal de Apelaciones. 3

Basado en lo anterior, den egamos la expedición del

auto de certiorari ante nuestra consideración.

Notifíquese

Lo acuerda y manda el Tribunal, y lo certifica la

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones

1 32 LPRA Ap. V, R. 52.1.

2 Trans

- Oceanic Life Ins. v. Oracle Corp. , 184 DPR 689, 709 (2012).

3 4 LPRA Ap. XXII

- B, R. 40.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Pankaj Mohan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
                                         Report on Form 10-K of Oncobiologics, Inc. (the “registrant”); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 27, 2017



|/s/ Pankaj Mohan                      | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Pankaj Mohan, Ph.D.                   | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |