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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2982 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2982

                       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

                                 An Act

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Carbon Hill 
             National Fish Hatchery to the State of Alabama.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carbon Hill National Fish Hatchery 
Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CARBON HILL NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE 
              OF ALABAMA.

    (a) Conveyance Requirement.--Within 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to 
the State of Alabama without reimbursement, all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the property described in 
subsection (b), for use by the Game and Fish Division of the Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, as part of the State 
of Alabama fish culture program.
    (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in subsection (a) 
is the property known as the Carbon Hill National Fish Hatchery, 
located on County Road 63 at Carbon Hill, Alabama, in Walker County, 
Alabama, consisting of 67 acres (more or less), and all improvements 
and related personal property under the control of the Secretary that 
is located on that property, including buildings, structures, 
equipment, and all easements, leases, and water rights relating to that 
property.
    (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed to the 
State of Alabama pursuant to this section shall be used by the State 
for purposes of fishery resources management and fisheries-related 
activities, and if it is used for any other purpose detrimental to 
those purposes and activities, all right, title, and interest in and to 
all property conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the 
United States. The State of Alabama shall ensure that the property 
reverting to the United States is in substantially the same or better 
condition as at the time of transfer.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Paulson Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Murray G. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.









/s/ Murray G. Smith


Murray G. Smith


Chief Financial Officer


Paulson Capital Corp.


April 30, 2013





This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Paulson Capital Corp. and will be retained by Paulson Capital Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005315EN.01000301.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Bundesrepublik Deutschland v ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG, and Others (1)

1

(Telecommunications services - Directive 97/13/EC - Article 11(2) - Charge for the allocation of new telephone numbers - Stock of numbers available free of charge to the undertaking succeeding the former monopoly)

(2005/C 315/05)

Language of the case: German

In Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03: two references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decisions of 30 April 2003, received at the Court on 28 July 2003, in the proceedings between Bundesrepublik Deutschland and ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG, represented by ISIS Multimedia Net Verwaltungs GmbH (C-327/03), Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH und Co. OHG (C-328/03) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides that a new operator on the telecommunications market is required to pay a charge in respect of the allocation of telephone numbers taking account of their economic value, even though a telecommunications undertaking having a dominant position on the same market took over free of charge the very large stock of numbers which were available to its predecessor, the former monopoly, and national law precludes retrospective payment of such a charge in respect of that stock.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

1

---
# C_2005257EN.01001401.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/14

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 — Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision/Council

(Case T-299/05)

(2005/C 257/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties:

Applicant(s): Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co Ltd and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Company Limited (Shanghai, China) [represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor]

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought:

| — | annul Council Regulation (EC) 692/2005 (1) of 28 April 2005, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EC) 692/2005 (1) of 28 April 2005, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

1

| — | order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The contested regulation imposed an anti-dumping duty on the applicants' exports of retail electronic weighing scales which also applied retrospectively to imports of these products registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 1408/2004 (2). Customs authorities in the EU were also instructed to cease the registration of imports of products coming from the People's Republic of China for the applicants.

2

The applicants request the Court to annul this regulation. In support of their application they invoke an infringement of Article 2.7(c) para. (2) of Council Regulation (EC) 384/1996 on the grounds that the Commission rendered a determination on the issue of Market Economy Treatment for the applicants after the expiry of the three month period provided for in this article. They further invoke manifest errors of assessment relating to the determination of whether the applicants operated under market economy conditions. The applicants consider these alleged errors as violations of Article 2.A.7.(c) para. (1) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996.

The contested regulation was adopted after a ‘newcomer investigation’ in respect of the applicants. The applicants allege that in that investigation the Community institutions did not adopt the same methodology they had applied in the original investigation which led to the duty and that, therefore, Article 11 paragraph 9 of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 was also violated.

The applicants also contend that the Community institutions failed to apply the proper standards in assessing the criteria relating to normal value, export price and profit margin and that therefore Articles 2.A.7. para(A) and 2.C. para(10) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 were violated.

Finally, the applicants contend that the contested regulation does not identify them properly in that it states incorrect addresses for both of them. They consider that a material error of fact.

---

(1)  OJ L 112, 3/5/2005, p. 42

1

(2)  OJ L 256, 03/08/2004, p. 8

2

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehave issued our report dated February 24, 2005, except for the secondparagraph of Note P as to which the date is March 7, 2005, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the AnnualReport of Paulson Capital Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,2004.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of PaulsonCapital Corp. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-123370).

 

 
| /s/ Grant Thornton, LLP |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Portland, Oregon        |   |
| March 31, 2005     |   |

 

----
# Rwanda

110 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 26, 2023	  Vedant PatelJanuary 26, 2023Washington, D.C.  
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 23, 2023	  Ned PriceJanuary 23, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Nigeria and Rwanda: First African Nations Sign the Artemis Accords	  December 13, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 12, 2022	  Ned PriceDecember 12, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Rwandan President Kagame	  December 5, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 31, 2022	  Ned PriceOctober 31, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Rwanda	  October 18, 2022 
        -    		Key Topics – Bureau of African Affairs	   
        -    Remarks  		Ambassador-at-Large Beth Van Schaack’s Remarks to the Case Western Reserve University School of Law: "International Law & The New Cold War"	  Beth Van SchaackSeptember 30, 2022Case Western Reserve University School of LawCleveland, Ohio 
        -    Press Statement  		The Trial of Félicien Kabuga for Genocide in Rwanda	  Ned PriceSeptember 29, 2022 

previous page123456…11next page

Back to Top
#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. John WASHINGTON, Jr.

No. 64702.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 23, 1979.

In re John Washington, Jr., applying for writs of supervisory review and habeas corpus. Orleans Parish. Traffic Court No. E628199.

Granted; the trial court is ordered to conduct, without undue delay, an evidentia-ry hearing on this habeas corpus application, for the purpose of preparing a record and ruling thereon.
#### § 6.2 When the Act applies.

The Act applies to any adversary adjudication pending before an agency at any time between October 1, 1981 and September 30, 1984. This includes proceedings begun before October 1, 1981, if final agency action has not been taken before that date, and proceedings pending on September 30, 1984, regardless of when they were initiated or when final agency action occurs.
# Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Releases

2276 items

        -    Report  		Guyana	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		The Bahamas	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Guatemala	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Argentina	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Grenada	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		El Salvador	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Ecuador	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Antigua and Barbuda	  April 20, 2018 
        -    		Lima Commitment: Eighth Summit of the Americas	  April 14, 2018 
        -    		Overseas Business Insights, April-May, 2018	  April 1, 2018 

previous page1…213214215216217…228next page

Back to Top
#### § 597.302 Assets.

The term *assets* includes, but is not limited to, money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future or contingent.
#### § 570.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations.

This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to those other parts authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Robert W. McMartin, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably



---

likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 14, 2006.



/s/ Robert W. McMartin

Robert W. McMartin

Chief Financial Officer
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Warren G.  Lichtenstein,  Chief Executive  Officer of Gateway
Industries, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2002 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ Warren G. Lichtenstein
                                             --------------------------
                                             Warren G. Lichtenstein
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             October 31, 2002
```
HomeUzbekistan

# Uzbekistan

117 items

        -    		C5+1 Joint Statements and Releases	   
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the C5+1 Meeting during UNGA 77	  September 28, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Trudeau Travels to Nepal, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan	  September 27, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Uzbekistan	  September 9, 2022 
        -    TIAS  		Uzbekistan (22-906) – Extension of Agreement on Weapons Proliferation	  September 6, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Uzbekistan Independence Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 31, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Uzbekistan	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Uzbekistan	  July 26, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Uzbekistan	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Protests in the Karakalpakstan Autonomous Region in Uzbekistan	  Ned PriceJuly 5, 2022 

previous page1…34567…12next page

Back to Top
#### Stella TISBY v. GOOD SAMARITAN FUNERAL HOME, INC. and Johnny Davis.

No. 82-C-1132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 4, 1982.

In re Stella Tisby, applying for writ of certiorari. Second Circuit, Court of Appeal. Parish of Caddo. No. 14758.

Denied.
#### GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. W. I. STINSON, Jr., Appellee.

No. II-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1979.

William R. Ptomey, Jr., of Fisher, Bell, Hahn, Winn & Rubel, P. A., Pensacola, for appellant.

George Ralph Miller of Andrews & Miller, Defuniak Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

General American contends the trial court erred in finding that appellee’s decedent was covered under one of its group life policies at the time of her death. Its primary contention is that the decedent, Mrs. Stinson, was not covered at her death because she no longer met one of the eligibility requirements for coverage, i. e. she no longer worked 30 hours per week in the business insured by the policy, Fisher Hardware Company. Appellee argues that Mrs. Stinson worked no more or less in the business at the time of her death than she did when the policy was issued, that appellant’s agents were aware of Mrs. Stinson’s status from the inception of the policy, and therefore, that appellant had waived any objection to her eligibility. After a thorough review of the rather obscure record presented on the issue, we find support for appel-lee’s position and affirm.

The record reveals that Mary Harris, an agent for the company which had previously insured the business, contacted General American about insuring Fisher Hardware after her company dropped its coverage. General American sent an agent to DeFun-iak Springs to write the coverage and a conversation took place between its agent, Mary Harris, and appellee, the President of the company. Mary Harris’ deposition testimony about the conversation was as follows:

> We were discussing, [whether Mrs. Stinson was eligible] . . . and I sat there until I found out he [the agent] thought he could cover them, the eligibility requirements, and although she was a stockholder and didn’t spend all of her time in the thirty hours a week, which is usually required in the office actually doing work in the store he agreed that she was active. I told him that she . . was considered an employee at that time and she was considered eligible at that time.

> Q. Yes ma’am. You understood then at the time that the policy was secured, her capacity as an employee of the store. A. That’s right. He called me and asked me, he called me telephone and said, ‘What do you think about the mother’ and I said — the representative said that he could cover her, that she was eligible and that’s the last I had to do with it.”

*786We believe this testimony supplies adequate proof that appellant’s agent, as well as Mary Harris, the apparent agent, had sufficient notice of Mrs. Stinson’s status as an employee of Fisher Hardware before it issued the policy to support the result reached by the trial court here. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.