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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 94 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 94

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 To designate the week of October 3, 1993, through October 9, 1993, as 
                  ``National Customer Service Week''.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 94

_______________________________________________________________________

                            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:

                                                             Secretary.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from R.P. Scherer
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          36,726
<SECURITIES>                                     3,765
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,900
<INVENTORY>                                     66,195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,302
<PP&E>                                         428,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 737,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,574
<BONDS>                                        176,937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   737,177
<SALES>                                        288,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,751
<CGS>                                          195,690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  239,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,059
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,059
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
13.1



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ehave, Inc.
(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge that:



| | 1. | The
    accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
    amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | 2. | The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.                                                                                                             



Date:
July 7, 2020



|/s/
    Benjamin Kaplan                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Benjamin Kaplan                                         | 
|Chief Executive Officer/Principal Executive
    Officer | 



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being
filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.
'1\ c,~~,'0. C': '7 ~'l-.I/"l'·'

!JeT- C\;;. I~ I I - <::.> IU N

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Monica Taylor-Lee

EAS (OST)

Fwd: Great Lakes Airlines

Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:56:51 PM

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Morton, Lance" <Lance.Morronccanaderko.com>

Date: August 22, 2013, 4:29:43 PM MDT

To: "mlee@flygreatlakes,com" <mlee@flygreatlakes,com>

Subject: FW: Great Lakes Airlines

I am writing this email in support of Great Lakes Airlines' proposal for three (3)

daily roundtrip flights between Vernal and Denver.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

FBPSupervisor

1368 South 1200 East

Vernal, UT 84078

435-781-7045

435-828-7517

Click here for Anadarko's Electronic Mail Disclaimer

< mime-attachment>
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3624

___________

Thomas James Erickson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States Post Office; *

Ione Smischney; Kalene Schultz; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Natalie Sorvari; Marilyn Doe, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas James Erickson appeals from the district court's1

 dismissal of his pro

se civil complaint in which he alleged that the United States Postal Service, through

four of its Minnesota employees, wrongfully refused to deliver his mail or hold it for

pick-up. Upon de novo review, see Goodin v. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv., 444 F.3d
-2-

998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 930 (2007), we conclude that the

district court properly dismissed Erickson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction because the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over

Erickson’s claims regarding postal rates and services. See 39 U.S.C. § 3662; LeMay

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2006). 

We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Hernandez v. Conriv

Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1999) (Article III deprives federal

courts of power to dismiss case with prejudice where subject matter jurisdiction does

not exist), and affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
#### Joseph Diggs et al. *v.*The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company John Arrigone et al. *v.*The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company

*Gregory C. Willis,*for the appellee (defendant) in each case.

*Philip Beich,*with whom was *Edward J. Donahue,*for the appellant (named plaintiff) in each case.

Argued October 1

decided October 8, 1963

In each case, the motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal of the named plaintiff from the judgment of May 20, 1963, rendered by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, is granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 266 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 266

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the future commitment of 
                United States military forces overseas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 21 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

Mr. Brown submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To express the sense of the Senate concerning the future commitment of 
                United States military forces overseas.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that in the commitment 
of United States forces in future conflict situations, the United 
States--
            (a) should not commit forces to combat unless the 
        particular commitment or occasion is deemed vital to our 
        national interest;
            (b) should, after determining the introduction of combat 
        troops is an absolute necessity, commit troops wholeheartedly 
        and with the clear intention of winning;
            (c) should have clearly defined political and military 
        objectives and should know precisely how United States forces 
        will accomplish these clearly defined objectives;
            (d) should continually reassess and readjust if necessary 
        the relationship between United States objectives and the 
        United States forces that have been committed, including the 
        size, composition, and disposition of those troops;
            (e) should commit no forces without the reasonable 
        assurance that the American people and their elected 
        representatives in Congress support the action; and
            (f) should only commit United States forces to combat as a 
        last resort.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,255
<PP&E>                                           1,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                     147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,624
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,787
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Barrett et al. v. Haas, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al.

(No. 2)

*152
      *Arthur B. Myers,*for plaintiffs.

*Robert E. Woodside,*Attorney General; *Elmer T. Bolla,*Deputy Attorney General, for defendants Haas and State Council of Education.

*James J. Powell,*for School District of Lackawanna Township.

*Alphonsus L. Casey*and *Patrick E. Kerwin,*for School District of City of Scranton.

February 13, 1952.

Smith, P. J.,

Plaintiffs, Francis Barrett, Bridget Shea and Alfred Hoover, and one of the defendants, School District of Lackawanna Township, filed certain exceptions to the adjudication and decree nisi of the chancellor in the above captioned case. None of these exceptions raised any questions not theretofore considered in the adjudication. Argument was had on the exceptions before the court en banc, at which time attorneys for exceptants, although duly notified, did not appear to press their contentions.

Under the facts as stipulated the territory, comprising the entire Township of Lackawanna, a township of the fourth class, was on the first Monday of January 1950 duly annexed to and became part of the City of Scranton, a city of the second class A for municipal purposes. Prior to the annexation, the School District of Lackawanna Township was a separate school district of the fourth class with territory coextensive with that of the annexed township. The School District of the City of Scranton is a school district of the second class. We are all in accord with the findings of the chancellor that, under the provisions of the Public School Code of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 PS §1-101 et seq., the territory comprising the School District of Lackawanna Township was merged in and *153became part of the School District of the City of Scranton on the first Monday of July 1950, and that, therefore, the order and direction to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to issue the required certificate to that effect was proper.

After full consideration of the exceptions, the court is convinced that they are without merit and must be dismissed.

*Final Decree*

And now, February 13, 1952, the exceptions of plaintiffs and defendant, School District of Lackawanna Township, are severally dismissed. Judgment shall be entered in accordance with the decree nisi filed October 8, 1951.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd 

day of October, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MICHAEL KENNEDY, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00299-CV; Trial Court No. 3-41298

By per curiam opinion.

THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS, ET AL, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 20th day of February, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 103

To amend rule XXIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to limit the

length of service of Senators on congressional committees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 29 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. GRASSLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

To amend rule XXIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate

to limit the length of service of Senators on congressional

committees.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON LENGTH OF SERVICE ON CON3 GRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

4 Rule XXIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph:

7 ‘‘5. (a) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term

8 ‘committee’ includes a standing committee, select commit9 tee, and any other committee of the Senate and a joint
2

•SRES 103 IS

1 committee of the Senate and the House of Representa2 tives.

3 ‘‘(b) A Senator who has completed service as a mem4 ber of a committee for 4 consecutive full Congresses may

5 not be appointed to serve as a member of that committee

6 until the beginning of the third Congress following the

7 completion of the Senator’s fourth term of service as a

8 member of the committee.

9 ‘‘(c) To the extent possible, at least one-half of the

10 Members of the majority party and one-half of the Mem11 bers of the minority party that are appointed to serve on

12 a committee during a Congress shall be Senators who

13 served on that committee during the preceding Congress.

14 ‘‘(d) It shall not be in order to consider a resolution

15 or take any other action that appoints Senators to serve

16 on a committee in violation of this rule or any other rule

17 of the Senate.’’.

18 SEC. 2. PHASING IN.

19 (a) SERVICE PRIOR TO THE 104TH CONGRESS.—

20 Service by a Senator as a member, chairman, or vice chair21 man of a committee of the Senate or of a joint committee

22 of the Senate and the House of Representatives prior to

23 the beginning of the 104th Congress shall not be counted

24 for the purposes of paragraph 5 of rule XXIV of the

25 Standing Rules of the Senate, as added by section 1.
3

•SRES 103 IS

1 (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULAR ROTATION OF

2 MEMBERSHIP.—(1) To the extent practicable, no more

3 than three-fourths of the Senators appointed to a commit4 tee for the 105th Congress shall be Senators who served

5 on that committee for the 104th Congress.

6 (2) To the extent practicable, no more than three7 fourths of the Senators appointed to a committee for the

8 106th Congress shall be Senators who served on that com9 mittee for the 104th or 105th Congress.

10 (3) To the extent practicable, no more than three11 fourths of the Senators appointed to a committee for the

12 107th Congress shall be Senators who served on that com13 mittee for the 104th, 105th, or 106th Congress.

14 (4) To the extent practicable, no more than three15 fourths of the Senators appointed to a committee for the

16 108th Congress shall be Senators who served on that com17 mittee for the 104th, 105th, 106th, or 107th Congress.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOn Wings of the Minimum Induced Drag: Spanload Implications for Aircraft and BirdsFor nearly a century Ludwig Prandtl's lifting-line theory remains a standard tool for understanding and analyzing aircraft wings. The tool, said Prandtl, initially points to the elliptical spanload as the most efficient wing choice, and it, too, has become the standard in aviation. Having no other model, avian researchers have used the elliptical spanload virtually since its introduction. Yet over the last half-century, research in bird flight has generated increasing data incongruous with the elliptical spanload. In 1933 Prandtl published a little-known paper presenting a superior spanload: any other solution produces greater drag. We argue that this second spanload is the correct model for bird flight data. Based on research we present a unifying theory for superior efficiency and coordinated control in a single solution. Specifically, Prandtl's second spanload offers the only solution to three aspects of bird flight: how birds are able to turn and maneuver without a vertical tail; why birds fly in formation with their wingtips overlapped; and why narrow wingtips do not result in wingtip stall. We performed research using two experimental aircraft designed in accordance with the fundamentals of Prandtl's second paper, but applying recent developments, to validate the various potentials of the new spanload, to wit: as an alternative for avian researchers, to demonstrate the concept of proverse yaw, and to offer a new method of aircraft control and efficiency.Document ID20160003578Acquisition SourceArmstrong Flight Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsBowers, Albion H.*(NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards, CA, United States)*Murillo, Oscar J.*(NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards, CA, United States)*Jensen, Robert (Red)*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Edwards AFB, CA, United States)*Eslinger, Brian*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Edwards AFB, CA, United States)*Gelzer, Christian*(Logical Innovations, Inc. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 22, 2016Publication DateMarch 1, 2016Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberDFRC-E-DAA-TN19884NASA/TP-2016-219072Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NND08RR01BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsaerodynamicsstructuresflight dynamicsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160003578.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024