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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 78

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

   To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers 
    conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of 
                         Missouri and Illinois.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 78

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers 
    conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of 
                         Missouri and Illinois.

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between Missouri and Illinois 
        creating the Bi-State Development Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan 
        District provided that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State 
        Agency under the provisions of article III of such compact until such 
        power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency by the legislatures of 
        the States to the compact and approved by an Act of Congress; and
Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in order to confer 
        certain additional powers on such Bi-State Development Agency: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the consent of 
Congress is hereby given to the additional powers conferred on the Bi-
State Development Agency of the Compact Between Missouri and Illinois 
approved under the Joint Resolution of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
by section 70.378 of the Act of May 26, 1993 (1993 Mo. Laws 382) and 
section 5 of Public Act 88-611, Laws of Illinois 1994.
    (b) The powers consented to in subsection (a) and conferred by the 
laws referred to in such subsection shall take effect on January 1, 
1995.
    Sec. 2. The provisions of the Joint Resolution of August 31, 1950 
(64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the additional powers approved under this 
joint resolution to the same extent as if such additional powers were 
conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in such 
Joint Resolution.
    Sec. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
is expressly reserved.
    Sec. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress to require the 
disclosure and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State 
Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by the Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

        The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of First Keystone Financial,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certify that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                    /s/ Rose M. DiMarco
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Rose M. DiMarco
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer



Date:  February 14, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      -1-
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 139

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the George Washington University

is important to the Nation and urging that the importance of the University be recognized and celebrated through regular ceremonies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 31, 1996

Mr. STEARNS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the George Washington University is important to the Nation and urging

that the importance of the University be recognized and

celebrated through regular ceremonies.

Whereas on February 9, 1821, Congress chartered Columbian College, which was renamed the George Washington

University (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘University’’) in 1904;

Whereas President James Monroe signed the University’s

charter;

Whereas Congress adjourned and joined President Monroe

for the University’s first commencement exercises;

Whereas in 1825 the University opened a College of Medicine;
2

•HCON 139 IH

Whereas the University has made and continues to make exceptional contributions to the health of the public, including the historic use the University’s medical facilities as

a military hospital during the Civil War;

Whereas the University continues to provide medical treatment to the people of the Nation ranging from presidents

and members of Congress to indigent and homeless individuals;

Whereas the University has, in the past 175 years, contributed to the educational, cultural, and political enrichment

of the Nation through synergistic associations with the

Federal Government;

Whereas the University is the largest institution of higher

education in the Nation’s capital, and provides educational services to more than 19,000 undergraduate,

graduate, and professional students each year; and

Whereas the University has rendered and continues to render

exemplary service to the Nation through the achievement

of the University’s educational mission, with distinguished alumni holding prominent positions in business,

law, government, medicine, and the arts and sciences:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the George Washington University has been

4 and continues to be of exceptional importance to the

5 Nation; and
3

•HCON 139 IH

1 (2) the importance of the George Washington

2 University should be recognized and celebrated

3 through regular ceremonies.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Garrett, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 259]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 11, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in making its *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]), as it struck a proper balance between the probative value of the evidence of the defendant’s criminal history and the possible prejudice against him *(see People v Powell, 4*AD3d 489, 490 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS THREE MONTH YEAR TO DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC. 1999 10-Q FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,785,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    590,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,665,000
<PP&E>                                       2,367,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,760,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,739,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          750,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,900,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,739,000
<SALES>                                        292,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               332,000
<CGS>                                          118,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               518,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,471,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,471,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,471,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Patricia A. Murphy-Tarver et al., Appellants, v La Shanti P. Lester et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 450]

*994Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered November 24, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 312-a (f) for an immediate judgment in the amount of, inter alia, the expense of serving defendants by an alternative method.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in part and as modified the order is affirmed with costs to plaintiffs, and judgment is ordered in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action by serving defendants by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a (a). When “the acknowledgment of receipt” was not returned by defendants or the other persons set forth in CPLR 312-a (b) within the requisite 30-day period, plaintiffs utilized “an alternative method” of service of process and thereafter moved for an immediate judgment in the amount of, inter alia, the expense of serving defendants by that alternative method (CPLR 312-a [f]). Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking an immediate judgment in the amount of $47.13, i.e., the amount expended by plaintiffs in serving defendants by the alternative method of service of process *(see Dazco Heating & A.C. Corp. v C.B.C. Indus.,*225 AD2d 578, 579 [1996]; *Kostelanetz & Fink v Hui Qun Zhao,*180 Misc 2d 847, 850 [1999]). Thus, we modify the order accordingly, and we order that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants in that amount. We note that plaintiffs also sought as part of the immediate judgment the amount relating to the expenses of the motion herein, because the motion was necessitated by the service of process by an alternative method. The court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion, however, inasmuch as there is no statutory authority for the inclusion of such expenses in the “immediate judgment” (CPLR 312-a [f]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
www.gpo.gov

#### National Council on Indian Opportunity; Appropriations Authorization; Termination Date

Pub. L. 91–125, Nov. 26, 1969, 83 Stat. 220, provided for annual appropriations of $300,000 and a termination date of Nov. 26, 1974 for the National Council on Indian Opportunity which was established by Ex. Ord. 11399.

#### Executive Order No. 11399

Ex. Ord. No. 11399, Mar. 6, 1968, 33 F.R. 4245, as amended by Ex. Ord. 11551, Aug. 11, 1970, 35 F.R. 12885; Ex. Ord. No. 11688, Dec. 1, 1972, 37 F.R. 25815, established the National Council on Indian Opportunity and provided for the functions, compensation, assistance, and meetings with respect to the Council.
#### In the Matter of Maria N. Sweitzer, Appellant, v Dennis F. Montanino, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 257]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J), dated July 7, 2004, which denied her objection to so much of an order of the same court (Dwyer, S.M.) dated March 12, 2004, as, after a hearing, declined to impute income to the father based on his annual salary prior to the termination of his last employment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, while it may be appropriate to impute income where the father has voluntarily left his employment *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [v]; *Matter of Barrow v Hammond,*305 AD2d 496, 497 [2003]; *Matter of Dodaro v Beyer,*297 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]; *Matter of Prill v Mandell, 231*AD2d 445, 446 [1997]; *Matter of Beck v Beck,*228 AD2d 672, 673 [1996]), the facts of this case do not warrant this finding *(see Matter of Prill v Mandell,*supra;*Martusewicz v Martusewicz,*217 AD2d 926, 927 [1995]).

*567The mother’s contention that the father did not diligently seek new employment is without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order of the Support Magistrate. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### Elizabeth Rosado, Respondent, v Steven M. Hughes, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 477]

*319Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James Weigert, Support Mag.), entered on or about January 26, 2005, insofar as it implicitly denied respondent Hughes’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition for an award of support for college education for the parties’ sons, and denied as premature respondent’s application for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although Family Court characterized the motion and cross motion as seeking counsel fees and evidence of employment by respondent Hughes’s counsel, both parties have proceeded on the understanding that the appealed order implicitly denied respondent’s summary judgment motion. We perceive no basis for the summary relief sought and accordingly affirm. Determining whether respondent should be compelled to fund the college education of his two older sons *(see*Family Ct Act § 413; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]) entails consideration of numerous factual issues raised by the present record respecting, inter alia, respondent’s financial circumstances, the causes of the alleged rupture between him and his oldest son, his sons’ academic endeavors and what sort of college(s) would be suitable for them *(see e.g. Otero v Otero,*222 AD2d 328, 329-330 [1995]).

Any determination respecting fees and sanctions should await disposition of the substantive issues.

Finally, petitioner has suggested that the propriety of the subpoena issued by her attorney seeking employment records of respondent’s present wife, who is also his attorney, is now a moot issue. Under such circumstances, no further action is taken except to note that the request was improper and should not be revived in any fashion. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1015 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1015

 To provide for the temporary suspension of the reformulated gasoline 
                     rules under the Clean Air Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 1995

Mr. Kleczka (for himself, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the temporary suspension of the reformulated gasoline 
                     rules under the Clean Air Act.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.

    Upon the enactment of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency 
rules under section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act shall be suspended. 
Such suspension shall remain in effect until such time as the 
Administrator--
            (1) demonstrates, after notice and opportunity for hearing, 
        that reformulated gasoline manufactured and distributed in 
        accordance with such rules does not cause adverse health 
        effects; or
            (2) revises such rules to eliminate any such adverse health 
        effects, and
submits a report to the appropriate committees of Congress setting 
forth the steps taken under paragraph (1) or (2).
                                 <all>
```
# L_2019073EN.01019301.xml

| 15.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/193

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 72 of 14 March 2019
  )

On page 5, Article 1:

for:

‘Article 1

In Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013, the following paragraph is added:

“4.   From the day following the one on which both ratification instruments concerning the Withdrawal Agreement have been deposited, allowances created for 2019 and 2020 shall not be identified with a country code if compliance with Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions taking place during these years is required by an agreement setting out arrangements for the withdrawal of such a Member State from the European Union.”’,

read:

‘Article 1

In Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013, the following paragraph is added:

“From the day following the one on which both ratification instruments concerning the Withdrawal Agreement have been deposited, allowances created for 2019 and 2020 shall not be identified with a country code if compliance with Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions taking place during these years is required by an agreement setting out arrangements for the withdrawal of such a Member State from the European Union.”’.

---
#### § 54.4974-2 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6065-1 Verification of returns.

For provisions concerning the verification of returns and other documents, see the regulations relating to the particular tax.

time for filing returns and other documents
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### AFM change 1.0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 284 $ 24,140.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance : Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 24,140 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 24,140

**On**

**- Condition Co**  **sts:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to exp lain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:**

Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requir ements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
www.gpo.gov

### §1300b–4. Tax exemption

None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this subchapter shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

(Pub. L. 92–467, §5, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 781.)
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.7102-1 Single bond in lieu of multiple bonds. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who is required, or authorized, under the Code (other than sections 6803(a)(1) and 7485), or under any rules or regulations under the Code, to execute two or more bonds may, in the discretion of the district director, furnish a single bond in lieu of such two or more bonds but only if such single bond meets all the conditions and requirements prescribed for each of the separate bonds which it replaces. This section shall also apply in the case of bonds required or authorized under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (other than sections 1423(b) and 1145) or under the regulations under such Code.
( b ) *Bonds required under subtitle E and chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.* In the case of bonds required under subtitle E and chapter 75, subtitle F, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or under the corresponding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939), a single bond will not be accepted in lieu of two or more bonds except as provided in the regulations in subchapter E of this chapter (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Excise Taxes).