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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 258 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 258

 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 19 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Heflin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

           September 28 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

            October 4 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved, That, as a supplement to S. Res. 108 of the 103d 
Congress, the bill S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard 
Kanehl of Mobile, Alabama.'' now pending in the Senate, together with 
all the accompanying papers, is referred to the chief judge of the 
United States Court of Federal Claims. The chief judge shall proceed 
with the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 1492 and 
2509 of title 28, United States Code, notwithstanding the bar of any 
statute of limitations, laches, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or 
bar of sovereign immunity, and report thereon to the Senate, at the 
earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact and conclusions 
thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and 
character of the demand as a claim, legal or equitable, against the 
United States or a gratuity and the amount, if any, legally or 
equitably due to the claimants from the United States. In complying 
with this resolution, the Court of Federal Claims is requested to 
consider the records of any previous trial of the issues in this case, 
including the records of Merchants National Bank v. United States (7 
Cl. Ct. 1; 1984).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edd Helms Group, Inc.
and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the quarter ended August 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, W. Edd Helms, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the company.

Date: January 21, 2008       /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ----------------      ----------------------
                             W. Edd Helms, Jr., President, Chief
                              Executive Officer

      January 21, 2008       /s/  Dean A. Goodson
      ----------------      --------------------
                            Dean A. Goodson, Chief Financial Officer

      January 21, 2008      /s/  L. Wade Helms
      ----------------      ------------------
                            L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>                      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                              FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                              FROM 10Q DATED SEPTEMBER 30,
                              1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                              ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>                          1000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                190577
<SECURITIES>                          1313234
<RECEIVABLES>                         83201
<ALLOWANCES>                          5578
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1753006
<PP&E>                                142952
<DEPRECIATION>                        96742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        2213135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 264042
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              238
<OTHER-SE>                            1751665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          2213135
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      325951
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         254061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       231939
<INCOME-TAX>                          93300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   125622
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          125622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         5.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,039,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,810,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,974
<INVENTORY>                                  3,394,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,412,603
<PP&E>                                      14,883,053
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,552,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,898,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,357,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,602
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,952,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,898,586
<SALES>                                     10,814,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,888,364
<CGS>                                        9,015,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,901,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,714,674
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (727,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (728,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (728,640)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
39497.

#### WAITS v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

This is a workmen’s compensation case in which the claimant sought compensation on the basis of a disability claimed to be due to an industrial disease, namely, silicosis. Medical testimony in the form of depositions of three medical doctors was heard by the board, their *131evidence being in sharp conflict, one testifying that in his opinion the claimant was disabled on account of silicosis, and two testifying that the claimant’s disability was not due to silicosis. The case was submitted to the medical board which rendered a decision holding that the claimant was not disabled as the result of silicosis. On appeal the medical board adhered to this decision and the deputy director entered an award finding in accordance with that decision. On appeal to the board, the findings of fact by the deputy director were adopted by the board and an award denying compensation was entered by the board. The judgment of the superior court affirming the full board is here for review. *Held:*

Decided May 22, 1962

Rehearing denied June 13, 1962.

*Herschel H. Hutchins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ferdinand Buckley, Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Vaughn & Barksdale, A. R. Barksdale,*contra.

“Where a claim before the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation involves a question of whether the employee is disabled as the result of an occupational disease, the sole jurisdiction to decide this medical issue lies with the Medical Board, and the only jurisdiction of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation is to enter an award in conformity therewith. *Code Ann.*§ 114-819; *Griffith v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co.,*100 Ga. App. 157 (110 SE2d 539). The findings of the Medical Board are conclusive and not reviewable unless an appeal is made directly therefrom on statutory grounds. *Code Ann.*§ 114-823 (5); *Borden Co. v. Fuerlinger,*95 Ga. App. 556 (1) (98 SE2d 410).” *Farrill v. Travelers Ins. Co.,*105 Ga. App. 600 (125 SE2d 562). No showing was sought to be made in this case that the board acted without or in excess of its powers or that the award was procured by fraud or that the facts found by the board did not support its decision. The judge of the superior court did not err in denying the appeal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7961 

To authorize a higher Federal share for emergency relief funds for the 

reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge located in Baltimore 

City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland, that collapsed 

on March 26, 2024, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Mr. MFUME (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SARBANES, 

Mr. HARRIS, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, and Mr. IVEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize a higher Federal share for emergency relief 

funds for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key 

Bridge located in Baltimore City and Baltimore and 

Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland, that collapsed on 

March 26, 2024, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Baltimore Bridge Re5 sponse Invests and Delivers Global Economic Relief Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7961 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDING. 

2 Congress finds that, in accordance with section 

3 668.105(e) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (or 

4 a successor regulation), any compensation for damages or 

5 insurance proceeds, including interest, recovered by a 

6 State, a political subdivision of a State, or a toll authority 

7 for repair, including reconstruction, of the bridge de8 scribed in section 3 in response to the damage described 

9 in that section should be used on receipt to reduce liability 

10 on the repair, including reconstruction, of that bridge 

11 from the emergency fund authorized under section 125 of 

12 title 23, United States Code. 

13 SEC. 3. FEDERAL SHARE FOR CERTAIN EMERGENCY RE14 LIEF PROJECTS. 

15 Notwithstanding subsection (e) of section 120 of title 

16 23, United States Code, the Federal share for emergency 

17 relief funds made available under section 125 of that title 

18 to respond to damage caused by the cargo ship Dali to 

19 the Francis Scott Key Bridge located in Baltimore City 

20 and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland, in21 cluding reconstruction of that bridge and its approaches, 

22 shall be 100 percent. 

23 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

24 This Act shall take effect as if enacted on March 26, 

25 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38181-38182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1480-000]


Marble River, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

July 27, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Marble River, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 17, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for

[[Page 38182]]

review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. 
There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers 
to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a4c4f584945646663646f597f7a7a65787e4a6c6f7869246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="276162756468494b4e494274525757485553674142554409404851">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18305 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 1.863-6 Income from sources within a foreign country.

The principles applied in sections 861 through 863 and section 865 and the regulations thereunder for determining the gross and the taxable income from sources within and without the United States shall generally be applied in determining the gross and the taxable income from sources within and without a particular foreign country when such a determination must be made under any provision of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, including section 952(a)(5). This section shall not apply, however, to the extent it is determined by applying § 1.863-3 that a portion of the taxable income is from sources within the United States and the balance of the taxable income is from sources within a foreign country. In the application of this section, the name of the particular foreign country shall be used instead of the term *United States*, and the term *domestic* shall be construed to mean created or organized in such foreign country. In applying section 861 and the regulations thereunder for purposes of this section, references to sections 243 and 245 shall be excluded, and the exception in section 861(a)(3) shall not apply. In the case of any item of income, the income from sources within a foreign country shall not exceed the amount which, by applying any provision of sections 861 through 863 and section 865 and the regulations thereunder without reference to this section, is treated as income from sources without the United States. See § 1.937-2T for rules for determining income from sources within a possession of the United States.

[T.D. 9194, 70 FR 18928, Apr. 11, 2005]
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, 2017 (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: May 15, 2019



|/s/ Prateek Dwivedi     | 
|----------------------- | 
|Prateek Dwivedi         | 
|Chief 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2637

ARNOLD VANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOLLAND, Trustee; DONALD PIERCE, JR., Trustee; JOHN WALTON, Trustee; JOSEPH J. STAHL, II, Trustee; TRUSTEES OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1974 PENSION TRUST, United Mine Workers of America, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-97-269-B) Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Mims, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arnold Vance appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust, finding that the Trustees’ decision to deny benefits under the pension plan was not an abuse of discretion in this action filed pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record de novo and agree with the district court that the Trustees did not abuse their discretion. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch , 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989); Brogan v. Holland , 105 F.3d 158, 161 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the district court order. See Vance v. Holland , No. CA97-269-B (W.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
September 25, 2015

Scott E. Sayre

7750 Tecumseh Trail

Cincinnati, Ohio 45243

Dear Mr. Sayre:

This letter responds to your petition for exemption dated June 9, 2015, requesting an 

exemption from Title 14 of The Code of Federal Regulations, § 91.881, for your Morane 

Saulnier MS-760 airplane. Your request was docketed as No. FAA-2015-3237. Section 

91.881 requires that after December 31, 2015, jet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight 

of 75,000 pounds or less must meet Stage 3 noise requirements to operate in the contiguous 

United States. 

Section 506 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) prohibits the 

operation of jets weighing 75,000 pounds or less that do not meet Stage 3. The FMRA also 

allows for the limited operation of prohibited jets for certain purposes. These provisions are 

listed in the codified statute at 49 USC 47534, and were adopted in 14 CFR at §§ 91.881 and 

91.883.

The FAA is unable to grant your request for exemption from § 91.881 because we have no 

authority to do so. The statute did not grant the FAA any authority to make exceptions to the 

prohibition other than as specified for limited special flight authorizations for specified 

purposes identified in the law. 

You noted that your aircraft was excluded from the FAA’s rulemaking that adopted this 

statutory change. Since the FAA was given no authority to change the statute, our analysis 

conducted at the time was not required by law and was not meant to be comprehensive. It 

was designed to give interested persons and affected operators a sense of the range of aircraft 

subject to the statutory prohibition and the anticipated economic impact for some of the more 

common models in operation. 

 
2

Accordingly, we are taking no further action on your request and the docket for this request is

being closed. 

Sincerely,

//s//

Lourdes Maurice

Director, Environment and Energy