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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3120 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3120

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 1996

   Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania 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 witness 
           retaliation, witness tampering and jury tampering.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 1513, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or 
testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which 
may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher 
of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have 
been imposed for any offense charged in such case.'';
            (2) in section 1512, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a 
trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be 
imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided 
by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense 
charged in such case.''; and
            (3) in section 1503, by adding at the end the following: 
        ``If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a 
        trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment 
        which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of 
        that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could 
        have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.''.
                                 <all>
```
HomePeace Status Lists...1. Four-Power Treaty Concerning Insular Possessions and Insular Dominions in the Region of the Pacific Ocean, with Declaration, done at Washington December 13, 1921

# 									1. Four-Power Treaty Concerning Insular Possessions and Insular Dominions in the Region of the Pacific Ocean, with Declaration, done at Washington December 13, 1921							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force August 17, 1923, on the deposit of instrument of ratification.
Download Status List						 [102 KB]

Tags

MultilateralPeaceTreaties

Back to Top
### Botanical prospecting for uranium in the Circle Cliffs area, Garfield County, Utah

By: F. J. KleinhamplCarl Koteff

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1085C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 7**                            (2211 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka

# 									Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 16, 2024

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard R. Verma will travel to India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka on February 18-23 to strengthen the United States’ cooperation with each of these key Indo-Pacific partners.  Shortly following the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, his trip will reaffirm the United States’ enduring commitment to a free, open, secure, and prosperous region.

In New Delhi, India, Deputy Secretary Verma will meet with senior government officials, business leaders, and entrepreneurs to advance the U.S.-Indian global strategic partnership on a full range of issues, including economic development, security, and technology.

From India, Deputy Secretary Verma will travel to Malé, Maldives, to meet with senior officials and advance shared priorities in increasing economic cooperation and promoting maritime security.  The Deputy Secretary will also tour the planned office space for a new U.S. Embassy in Malé, which will help further increase people-to-people ties between the United States and Maldives.

Deputy Secretary Verma will conclude his trip in Colombo, Sri Lanka.  His meetings with senior officials will support U.S.-Sri Lankan defense and maritime security cooperation.  The Deputy Secretary will visit the Port of Colombo’s West Container Terminal, where the United States is supporting Sri Lanka’s ongoing economic recovery through $553 million in financing to transform Colombo into a regional shipping hub.  Finally, he will meet with civil society leaders to hear their perspective on democratic governance in Sri Lanka and with government officials to voice U.S. support for the protection of free speech and open discourse.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesIndiaMaldivesOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSri Lanka

Back to Top
Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Alfacell Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-81308) on Form S-8 of Alfacell Corporation of our report dated November 4,
2002 relating to the balance sheets of Alfacell Corporation as of July 31, 2002
and 2001, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficiency), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended July 31, 2002 and the period from August 24, 1981 (date of inception) to
July 31, 2002, which report appears in the July 31, 2002 annual report on Form
10-K of Alfacell Corporation. Our report dated November 4, 2002, as it relates
to the financial statements for the period from August 24, 1981 (date of
inception) to July 31, 2002, is based on the report of other auditors as to the
amounts included therein for the period from August 24, 1981 (date of inception)
to July 31, 1992.

Our report dated November 4, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a working
capital deficit and has limited liquid resources which raise substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do
not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that
uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
November 13, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CEO PURSUANT TO 18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350


                            CERITFICATION 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 PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven A. Flagg, President of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 as of August 31, 2004.

 /s/ Steven A. Flagg
----------------------------------

Steven A. Flagg, President and CEO
Dated November 28, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3186 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3186

   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 1996

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in Overland, 
Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sammy L. Davis 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William Hansford JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 5, 1981.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Christopher S. Quarles, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is untimely and therefore dismissed.1 Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2).

ORFINGER, COBB and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

1

. Appeal in this case, had it been timely, would have been frivolous. *Robinson v. State,*373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979).
#### The Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. et al. *v.*The Village of Hartford et al.

*Court of appeals*— Court *procedure on appeal*— Error *to limit evidence to transcript, when.*

(No. 16366

Decided May 18, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Licking county.

*Messrs. Doyle & Lewis; Messrs. Kibler & Kibler*and *Mr. Frederick W. Gaines,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Fitzgibbon, Montgomery & Black,*for defendants in error.

The court finds that the court of appeals erred in the admission of the transcript of testimony taken in a former hearing of the cause under the circumstances and within the limitations laid down by the court as shown by the record. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the court of appeals b‘e, and the same is hereby, reversed, and it is further ordered and adjudged that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the court of appeals with instructions to proceed with the trial of the cause *de novo,*the parties being permitted to introduce in evidence relevant testimony under the legal rules applicable in the trial of questions of fact in trial courts.

*Judgment reversed and cause remanded.*

Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Wanamaker and Merrell, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joan D. Montgomery, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Accelr8 Technology
     Corporation.

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.

     b)   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

     c)   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 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 registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     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
          controls over financial report.

Dated:  March 16, 2005


/s/ Joan D. Montgomery
----------------------
Joan D. Montgomery, Principal Accounting Officer
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          SYSTEMS ASSURANCE CORPORATION

     SYSTEMS ASSURANCE  CORPORATION,  a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  law of the State of  Delaware,  DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of  Directors  of Systems  Assurance
Corporation, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to
the Certificate of Incorporation of said  corporation,  declaring said amendment
to be advisable  and  directing  that said  amendment be  considered at the next
annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation.  The resolution  setting
forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

     RESOLVED: That this Board of Directors  hereby  declares it advisable  that
          the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation be amended by
          deleting paragraph 4 thereof in its entirety and substituting therefor
          the following:

               4. The  total  number  of  shares of  capital  stock  which  this
               Corporation  shall have  authority  to issue is  fifteen  million
               (15,000,000)  shares of Common  Stock,  and the par value of each
               such share is one cent ($.01).

     SECOND:  That  thereafter,  an annual meeting of the  stockholders  of said
corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with section 222
of the General  Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware,  at which meeting the
necessary  number of shares as  required  by statute  were voted in favor of the
aforesaid amendment.

     THIRD:  That said  amendment has been duly adopted in  accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.

     FOURTH:  That the capital of said corporation will not be reduced by reason
of the aforesaid amendment.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   Systems  Assurance   Corporation  has  caused  this
certificate to be signed by Ronald A. Grant, its President,  and attested by Lea
B. Pendleton, its Assistant Secretary this 7th day of June, 1984.

                                    SYSTEMS ASSURANCE CORPORATION


                                    By:_________________________________________
                                         Ronald A. Grant, President

ATTEST:

By:______________________
     Lea B. Pendleton,
    Assistant Secretary
# C_2006131EN.01002601.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-133/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 131/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply, at federal level, with the provisions on discrimination based on disability, in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and, at Länder level, with the exception of the Länder of Vienna and Lower-Austria, to all the provision of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply, at federal level, with the provisions on discrimination based on disability, in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and, at Länder level, with the exception of the Länder of Vienna and Lower-Austria, to all the provision of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143 of 11.06.2005.

1

---
----

Action brought on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-154/05)

(2005/C 155/50)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice, residing in Strambeek Bever (Belgium), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, lodged with her superiors two requests for assistance, dated 28 November 2003 and 23 December 2003, in which she claimed to be the victim of psychological harassment within her organisational unit. By her action, she contests the rejection of her requests and of the complaint which she lodged subsequently.

In support of her action, the applicant maintains that, in the light of the number of tasks which were assigned to her by her superior and of the number of e-mails which he sent to her, it is indisputable that she experienced genuine psychological harassment. The contested decisions therefore infringe Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.

The rejection of her requests for assistance infringes, in her view, both Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and Mr Kinnock's proposal of 15 October 2003 concerning policy on psychological harassment. The applicant also alleges failure to state reasons for the decision of 18 January 2005, breach of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, misuse of powers, breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

----
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 0 S ?.014 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room Wl2-140 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

··•' I 

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No.9944, Regulatory Docket# FAA-2002-12249 

Dear Sirs: 

FAA Flight Inspection Services (FIS) Operating Certificate# RU3A249N, requests that it be 

granted an extension of exemption No. 9944, as amended. Exemption from 61.3 (a) and (c) 

of Title 14, Code ofF ederal Regulations allows FIS to issue facsimile pilot certificates and 

medical certificates to crewmembers whose certificates have been lost, destroyed, or 

misplaced. 

There have been no 'changes in the conditions and:reasons· relative to public interest and 

safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. We feel continued operation 

under the provisions of the exemption would be in the public interest. 

~dditionally, we request that the exemption period be granted for a period of three years. 

. . 

Thacl<. you for your consideration: 

Sincerel~ngina\ S\gned BY 

LaffV G. r\am\\ton 

Larry G. Hamilton 

Director of Operations 

Flight Inspection Operations Group 

Flig~tlnspectipn Sery~ces 

. '. .. ·"' , .. '' 

-~--· -. 

I" •·:·~....., .· .. 

\ :;-, 

LHamilton: MA::(405)954-3766: U:\AJW-3U:\AJW-33\0fflci'al Fiies FYt4\8200\Flight Irtspection\8200.1. General Correspondence 

Files\ Request for Extension of Exemption No. 9944, Regulatory Docket# FAA-2002-12249 .doc 

~-. J ~ .• . . ~- ' 

c' ~ ' 

. '·t' 

·, ._i ,. 

"•