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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3162 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3162

To require cigarette products to be placed under or behind the counter 
                            in retail sales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require cigarette products to be placed under or behind the counter 
                            in retail sales.

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

SECTION 1. RETAIL SALES OF CIGARETTE PRODUCTS.

    (a) Product Placement.--Any person engaged in the retail sales of 
cigarette products shall place such products under or behind a counter 
and not out on the floor of the retail sales facility.
    (b) Penalty.--A person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
considered to have engaged in a deceptive act or practice in violation 
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen M. Kasprisin, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Naturade, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2005      /s/ Stephen M. Kasprisin       Stephen M. Kasprisin    *Chief Financial Officer*
47
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1992-D, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         93,601
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               257,096
<PP&E>                                         4,191,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,926,743)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,522,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,721
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,513,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,522,277
<SALES>                                        553,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               556,897
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  707,013<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (235,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (235,893)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (235,893)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# C_2021141EN.01001301.xml

| 22.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/13

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur in the case of Zvonimir Cogelja v The Directorate of Health

(Case E-17/20)

(2021/C 141/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 8 December 2020 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 December 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Zvonimir Cogelja v The Directorate of Health on the following question:

Does Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications (see also point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 3, and Articles 21 and 26 of that directive), require that an EEA State that issues evidence of qualifications (called a ‘specialist licence’ (Icelandic: sérfræðileyfi)) for a doctor that enjoys automatic recognition in other EEA States must itself administer the training, recognition of which is sought through the issuance of such evidence, with the result that an EEA State is not to issue such evidence if the training did not take place in that State?

---
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C

. ^ 

## n[ I ® dD w JA^ l 1 2 20Q^
FA AAIRPORT S PART1 6 DOCKET S J& B ENTERPRISES , INC

. d/b/ a RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant ,

METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent

. FA A Docke t No
. 16-08-0 7

0 5

NOTIC E
Come s Raymon dG

. Prince , attorne y a t law , an dwoul dnotif

y thi s tribuna l an dcoimse l for Responden t

that , despit e bein g liste da s "Tennesse e Litigatio nCounsel " o nComplainant' s Complain t file di n thi s matter , h e ha s no t bee n retaine db y Complainan t i nthi s matter , doe s no t represen t Complainan t

i n thi s matter , an dwil l not b e representin g Complainan t mthi s matter
. Therefore , th e undersigne dneed s no t

b e copie do n any pleading s o r correspondenc e relatin g t o thi s proceedin g an d request s that

h e not b e so . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 9t hday o f January , 2009 :

liaymon dG

. Princ e PRINC E& HELLINGER , P C 15 0 Secon dAvenu e North , Suite 30 0 Nashville , T N37201-192 0 Telephone : (615)244-863 0 Facsimile : (615)244-864 4CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s day serve dth e origina l an dthre e copie s o f th e foregoin g Notic e o n th e followin g party at

th e followin g addres s vi aFedera l Expres s thi s 9thda y o f January , 2009 : Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l ATTTSf : FA A Part

1 6 Airport Proceeding s Docket , AG C - 61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washmgton , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 823 3 I als o hereb y certif

y that I hav e thi s da

y serve dacop y o f

th e foregoin g Notic e o nth e followin g person s vi aFedera l Express : Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , ' m3721 4 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 819 6 Thoma s Devin e KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Avenu e NW , Suite 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 821 1 ElizabethNewma n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Roo m923- M 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 824 4 Anthon y W
. Robinso n MBELDE F 110 0 Mercantil e Lane , Suit e 115- A Largo , M D 2077 4 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 826 6 Arthu r P
. Ber g KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 64 1 Lexingto nAvenue , Suite 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 820 0 LisaReynold s KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLLP 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 822 2 Sharo nLon g Airport s an dEnvironmenta l La w Divisio n Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No
. 865 9 325 1 825 5 J& B Enterprises , d/b/ aRhyth mShin e c/o Mr
. an dMrs
. Jame s G

. Druett 67 5 Lindse y Hollo w Roa d Gallatin , TN 3706 6 Federa l Expres s No^A6i5 9 325 1 827 7

^ ,/• •

S.\CLIENTS\J & B ENTERPRISE S - Concessio nAgreement\NOTIC E(1.09.09).wp d Raymon dG

. Princ e
# C_2007077EN.01003401.xml

| 5.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/34

---

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections

(2007/C 77/10)

Date of adoption:

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: Case 60971

Title: Prolongation of two schemes to audiovisual production, film related activities and film production companies

Objective: The principal objective of the two schemes is to ensure a desirable volume of films and an adequate promotion of the culture through cinematographic works. Film support mechanisms pursue the objective of creating framework conditions for a stable film production environment.

Legal basis: Regulation on support mechanisms for audiovisual production (Forskrift om tilskudd til audiovisuelle produksjoner) and Regulation on public support for film production companies (Forskrift om tilskudd til produksjonsselskaper).

Budget/Duration: The budget of the two schemes for 2006 is NOK 240,1 million (approximately EUR 29,28 million). Annual budgets for the following years will be subject to annual parliamentary budget procedures. The prolongation of the schemes is until 7 August 2008.

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry

---
# C_2006314EN.01008301.xml

| 21.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/83

---

Summary information for publication in the Official Journal

(2006/C 314/11)

| Number of aid | Case No 60540 |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State | Liechtenstein |
| Title of the aid scheme | Media Support Act (Medienförderungsgesetz) |
| Legal Basis | Media Support Act, Government proposal to the Liechtenstein Landtag No 36/2006 |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme | CHF 1,5 million (some EUR 966 000)
  Overall amount for five years: CHF 7,5 million (some EUR 4 829 000) |
| Duration | Entry into force: 1 January 2007
  The duration of the Media Support Act is not limited in time. However, the exemption is requested for five years, i.e. until 31.12.2011. The scheme will then be re-notified to the Authority. |
| Maximum aid intensity of the aid scheme | 30 % of standardised wages costs for employees involved in the creation of the journalistic-editorial content for a medium within the meaning of section 4 of the Media Support Act
  25 % of actually incurred disseminations costs of a medium within the meaning of section of section 4 of the Media Support Act
  40 % of training and education costs for employees involved in the creation of the journalistic-editorial content for a medium within the meaning of section of section 4 of the Media Support Act |
| Economic sectors: | Media undertakings |
| Name and address of the granting authority: | Media Commission |
| Regierungsgebäude |
| FL-9490 Vaduz |
| Principality of Liechtenstein |

Number of aid

Case No 60540

EFTA State

Liechtenstein

Title of the aid scheme

Media Support Act (Medienförderungsgesetz)

Legal Basis

Media Support Act, Government proposal to the Liechtenstein Landtag No 36/2006

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme

CHF 1,5 million (some EUR 966 000)

Overall amount for five years: CHF 7,5 million (some EUR 4 829 000)

Duration

Entry into force: 1 January 2007

The duration of the Media Support Act is not limited in time. However, the exemption is requested for five years, i.e. until 31.12.2011. The scheme will then be re-notified to the Authority.

Maximum aid intensity of the aid scheme

30 % of standardised wages costs for employees involved in the creation of the journalistic-editorial content for a medium within the meaning of section 4 of the Media Support Act

25 % of actually incurred disseminations costs of a medium within the meaning of section of section 4 of the Media Support Act

40 % of training and education costs for employees involved in the creation of the journalistic-editorial content for a medium within the meaning of section of section 4 of the Media Support Act

Economic sectors:

Media undertakings

Name and address of the granting authority:

Media Commission

Regierungsgebäude

FL-9490 Vaduz

Principality of Liechtenstein

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>          0000794927
<NAME>         CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>              MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<CASH>                          587,479
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,509,216
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,147,058
<PP&E>                        6,422,046
<DEPRECIATION>               (4,296,311)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               25,895,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,486,711
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          8,698
<OTHER-SE>                   17,795,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 25,895,190
<SALES>                       6,320,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6,320,936
<CGS>                         3,418,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,788,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (369,289)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              183,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 300,128
<INCOME-TAX>                     30,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              30,720
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    269,408
<EPS-BASIC>                       .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .04


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**OPTi Inc.**

 

**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 Annual Report of OPTi Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”). I, Bernard T. Marren, 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, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

Date: June 29, 2006
# C_2021141EN.01000901.xml

| 22.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/9

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 141/09)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17 December 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85978 |
| Decision No | 161/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | Environmental aid in favour of Boliden Odda AS for the realisation of the P350 project |
| Legal basis | The full scale innovative energy and climate technology programme, which has its basis in the Eco-Inn Scheme |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Energy efficiency |
| Form of aid | Grant |
| Budget | NOK 341 million |
| Intensity | 30 % |
| Duration | 2021- end 2023 |
| Economic sectors | Zinc metal production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Enova |
| Brattørkaia 17A |
| 7010 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

17 December 2020

Case No

85978

Decision No

161/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

Environmental aid in favour of Boliden Odda AS for the realisation of the P350 project

Legal basis

The full scale innovative energy and climate technology programme, which has its basis in the Eco-Inn Scheme

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Energy efficiency

Form of aid

Grant

Budget

NOK 341 million

Intensity

30 %

Duration

2021- end 2023

Economic sectors

Zinc metal production

Name and address of the granting authority

Enova

Brattørkaia 17A

7010 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
In Special Term —

Gholson, J. presiding.

#### BEIDELL & Co. *vs.*COOK & Co.

The certificate of a notary, to a deposition, must show affirmatively that the requisitions of Section 351 of the Code have been complied with; and a presumption that the officer did what the law prescribes, is insufficient.

Exception to admission of a deposition.

An exception was made in this case to a deposition, on the ground, that the certificate of the officer did not show that the deposition was subscribed in his presence, as required by Section 351 of the Code. The certificate was *95in this form: “I W. D. Notary Public, do hereby certify, that S. O. Y. & C. O. were by me severally sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that the depositions by them respectively subscribed, as above set forth, were reduced to writing by me, (I not being interested in the cause, nor of counsel for either party) and were taken at the time and place in the annexed notice specified.”

Woodruff & Hopkins for plaintiffs. Mills & Hoadley for defendants.

Gholson, J.

In cases of this description, we must either act on the presumption, that the officer has discharged his duty, and therefore require nothing more than a general certificate that the deposition has been taken, or the certificate must show a compliance with the particulars specified in the law. On this point the authorities are clear, that something more than a presumption must be required. There must be “ direct proof that the requisitions of the statute have been fully complied with.” If the certificate may be perfectly true, and yet, the deposition may not have been subscribed in the presence of the officer, I have no right to presume that it was so subscribed. Bell *vs.*Morrison, I Peters, 351 — 356.

In this view, I feel compelled to allow the exception.
Meeting to Discuss Ash Grove Cement, Durkee OR

Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP

September 30, 2009

Meeting Date: September 30, 2009.

Purpose: This was a meeting between USEPA staff and Congressional Staff for the 

Oregon Congressional Delegation to discuss the Ash Grove Cement plant in Durkee OR

Participants:

Congressional Staff

Dave Berick, Mary Gautreaux (Sen Wyden)

Jeremiah Baumann (Sen Merkley)

Ethan Pittleman, Alison Craig (Congressman Kurt Schrader - 5th District of OR)

USEPA

Keith Barnett

Peter Tsirigotis

The purpose of the meeting was for EPA to hear the questions from the staff of the 

Oregon Congressional delegation about the Ash Grove Cement facility. This facility had 

commented that they could not meet the proposed mercury limit and the Oregon 

delegation wanted to discuss the issues concerning the mercury limit.