alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. J. Res. 197

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Joint Resolution

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with respect to any bill or joint resolution

of the One Hundred Fourth Congress making general or continuing appropriations

for fiscal year 1997.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR PARCHMENT PRINTING.

(a) WAIVER.—The provisions of sections 106 and 107 of title

1, United States Code, are waived with respect to the printing

(on parchment or otherwise) of the enrollment of any appropriation

measure of the One Hundred Fourth Congress presented to the

President after the enactment of this joint resolution.

(b) CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT BY COMMITTEE ON HOUSE

OVERSIGHT.—The enrollment of any such measure shall be in such

form as the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives certifies to be a true enrollment.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION MEASURE DEFINED.

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term ‘‘appropriation

measure’’ means a bill or joint resolution that includes provisions

making general or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1997.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,927,632
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,900,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,675,316
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     90,312,032
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,857,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             109,354,151
<DEPOSITS>                                 100,202,665
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            941,978
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,695,388
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,514,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             109,354,151
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,983,366
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              449,202
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,432,568
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,603,944
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,617,923
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,814,645
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  500,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,350
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,181,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,543,221
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,543,221
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   850,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.29
<LOANS-NON>                                    702,110
<LOANS-PAST>                                   467,267
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                935,744
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,565,923
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  301,532
<RECOVERIES>                                    93,282
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,857,673
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,830,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         27,673
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest Mathis,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d),as applicable, 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:    May 13, 2008
                                        /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                        -----------------------
                                        Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Director


<PAGE>
#### Michael A. Santaro, Appellant, v Jack of Hearts Carpet Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 501]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered February 15, 2005 in an action for breach of contract and fraud. The order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court *(Santaro v Jack of Hearts Carpet Co., Inc.,*6 Misc 3d 1024[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50170 [U] [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-OxleyAct Of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned interimChief Executive Officer of VirtualFund.com, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2001 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date:  January 13, 2003 |   | /s/ Joseph D. Pupel                                                                             |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Joseph D. Pupel,                                                                                |
|                         |   | Interim Chief Executive  Officer (principal executive officer and principal accounting officer) |

 

 

18

----
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 143

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘February

5 29, 1996’’.

Æ
Amendment Number Seven to the Health Net, Inc.



 Exhibit 10.49 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN 
 TO THE 
 HEALTH NET, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective
January 1, 2001) 
 WHEREAS, Health Net, Inc. (the “Company”) heretofore has adopted and maintains the Health Net,
Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain of its affiliates; 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to reflect changes required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the “PPA”) and to makes certain other clarifying changes; 
 WHEREAS, the Company has the power to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 15.1 thereof. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 15.1 of the Plan, the Plan is amended as
follows: 
 1. Effective January 1, 2006, Section 8.2 of the Plan is amended to insert the phrase “Pre-2006” immediately
before the phrase “Matching Contributions Account” as it appears in the first sentence therein. 
 2. Effective January 1,
2007, the last sentence of Section 8.5(d) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 For purposes of this subsection,
the term “distributee” shall mean (i) a Participant, (ii) an alternative payee (within the meaning of section 414(p)(8) of the Code) with respect to a Participant under a qualified domestic relations order, (iii) a surviving
spouse of a Participant or (iv) a Beneficiary of a Participant; provided, however, that a Beneficiary is permitted to elect to have an eligible rollover distribution transferred pursuant to this subsection only to an individual
retirement account or annuity described in section 408(a) or (b) of the Code. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this
instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 27th day of December, 2006. 
  

			
	HEALTH NET, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Karin D. Mayhew
		 	Karin D. Mayhew
		
	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, Organization Effectiveness


  

 1
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1145

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to jury tampering.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1995

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

jury tampering.

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

3 That section 1503 of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If the of5 fense under this section occurs in connection with a trial

6 of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment

7 which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher

8 of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term
2

•HR 1145 IH

1 that could have been imposed for any offense charged in

2 such case.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, to
the best of his knowledge, that:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 13, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Norbert Sporns     
|Norbert Sporns         
|Chief Executive Officer
#### Joe COOK et al *v.*SOUTHERN CREDIT CORP.

5-5093

448 S. W. 2d 634

Opinion delivered January 12, 1970

*William H.. Arnold,*for appellants.

*James Góle,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The record here shows that appellant Joe Cook, on Oct. 22, 1966, purchased a 1966 Ford Thunderhird automobile from Gerald Harris. He traded in a 1964 Thunderhird and agreed to pay an additional $3,700.00 to consummate the sale. On that date Joe Cook signed a blank conditional sales contract and note which he gave to Harris with the understanding that Harris would hold the contract and note until he could furnish Cook the registration title and pink slip for the 1966 automobile. After approximately three weeks Cook returned the automobile to Harris because Harris could not furnish the title and pink slip as he had agreed to do. When the ’66 Thunderhird was returned, Harris had already sold or given up possession of the ’64 Thunderhird. At that time Harris agreed that he would get Cook a cheaper automobile.

Cook says that to his knowledge the conditional sales contract and note were never filled out. It is admitted that on Oct. 22, 1966, Harris took Cook’s conditional sales contract and note signed in blank to the *982offices of Southern Credit Corporation where Harris procured the services of a secretary of Southern Credit Corporation to fill in the blanks. Henry McClure, the Vice President of appellee Southern Credit Corporation testified that he had no knowledge of any defense or claim against the note at the time his company obtained it in good faith and for value.

The trial court entered judgment for appellee Southern Credit Corporation on the conditional sales contract and note. For reversal Cook raises three points, all of which are premised on the fact that appellee was not a holder in due course because it was aware that Harris had used a typewriter and one of appellee’s secretaries to fill in the blanks in the signed contract and note. We find appellant’s contentions to be without merit. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 85-3-304 (4) (Add. 1961) provides :

> “Knowledge of the following facts does not of itself give the purchaser notice of a defense or claim

> (a) . . .

> (d) That an incomplete instrument has been completed unless the purchaser has notice of any improper completion; ...”

The committee comment to the Uniform Commercial Code with reference to subsection (4) (d) points out that the policy of the statute is premised upon the fact that a person in possession of an instrument signed in blank has prima facie authority to fill in the blanks. Therefore as we interpret the statute a purchaser of a commercial instrument is entitled to the status of a holder in due course even though he knows that the possessor of the signed instrument filled in the blanks.

Affirmed.
July 20, 2015

Mr. Adrian Weisz

Drone Aeronautical Consultants, LLC.

PO Box 679

Wrightwood, CA 92397

Dear Mr. Weisz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 19th, exemption request on behalf of Drone Aeronautical Consultants, 

LLC. into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1707), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Olivo, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 594]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered June 13, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in declining to instruct the jury on the inherent weakness of evidence of flight *(see People v Bennett,*79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; *People v Yazum,*13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]). We disagree. In light of the overwhelming direct evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including the testimony of two police eyewitnesses, any error in failing to give the requested instruction was harmless *(see People v John,*221 AD2d 564, 565 [1995]; *People v Jackson,*142 AD2d 599 [1988]).

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor made improper remarks during his opening statement and summation and otherwise engaged in misconduct during the trial are largely unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951 [1981]; *People v Arroyo,*309 AD2d 870, 871 [2003]; *People v Foy,*253 AD2d 889 [1998]). In any event, the challenged remarks and conduct were either responsive to arguments made by defense counsel, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Pearson,*20 AD3d 575 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 831 [2005]; *People v Joseph,*20 AD3d 435 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 807 [2005]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for ap*585pellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 94 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                     

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 94

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 1995

    Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual prayer in public schools or to prohibit public school 
officials from including voluntary prayer in official school ceremonies 
and meetings. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe 
the content of any such prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
www.gpo.gov

### §268b. Advances from appropriation “Boundary line, Alaska and Canada, and the United States and Canada”

Advances of money under the appropriation “Boundary line, Alaska and Canada, and the United States and Canada”, may be made to the commissioner on the part of the United States and by his authority to chiefs of parties prior to March 2, 1921.

(Apr. 15, 1918, ch. 52, 40 Stat. 523; Mar. 2, 1921, ch. 113, 41 Stat. 1210; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, title III, §304, 42 Stat. 24; Apr. 29, 1926, ch. 195, title I, 44 Stat. 336; Feb. 24, 1927, ch. 189, title I, 44 Stat. 1185; Feb. 15, 1928, ch. 57, title I, 45 Stat. 70; Jan. 25, 1929, ch. 102, title I, 45 Stat. 1101; Apr. 18, 1930, ch. 184, title I, 46 Stat. 179; Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 643; Pub. L. 92–310, title II, §231(aa), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 212; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, §111(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3833.)

#### Codification

Section is from the Diplomatic and Consular Service Appropriation Act of Mar. 2, 1921. Similar provisions were contained in act Apr. 15, 1918, and other prior acts.

Acts Apr. 29, 1926; Feb. 24, 1927; Feb. 15, 1928; Jan. 25, 1929; and Apr. 18, 1930, were appropriation acts for the fiscal years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively. These Acts made applicable boundary appropriations for the enumerated fiscal years.

Section was formerly classified to section 535 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–316 substituted “chiefs of parties” for “chiefs of parties and accounts arising under advances shall be rendered through and by the commissioner on the part of the United States to the General Accounting Office as under advances made to chiefs of parties”.

1972—Pub. L. 92–310 struck out provisions that required chiefs of parties to give bonds.

1966—Pub. L. 89–554 struck out provisions that related to traveling expenses of the commissioner.

#### Transfer of Functions

“General Accounting Office” substituted in text for “Treasury Department” pursuant to act June 10, 1921, which transferred powers and duties conferred upon Comptroller, six auditors, and certain other officers of the Treasury to General Accounting Office. See section 701 et seq. of Title 31, Money and Finance.