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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4072 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4072

To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, 
   Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs 
                               Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2020

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, 
   Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs 
                               Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT D. MAXWELL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
located at 2650 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon, shall after the date 
of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Robert D. 
Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'' or the ``Robert D. 
Maxwell VA Clinic''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending October 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Ryan, Chief
Executive Officer, President, Secretary and General Counsel 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, as amended; and





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





December
      10, 2009
              /s/Christopher J. RyanChristopher
      J. RyanChief
      Executive Officer, President,Secretary
      and General Counsel
#### § 27.1194 Other surfaces.

All surfaces aft of, and near, powerplant compartments, other than tail surfaces not subject to heat, flames, or sparks emanating from a powerplant compartment, must be at least fire resistant.

[Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 964, Jan. 26, 1968]
#### § 1300.20 Lender responsibilities.

The lender shall have such obligations and duties to the Board as are set forth in the guarantee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (00-042)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces an open meeting of the NAC Task Force on International Space Station Operational Readiness (IOR).

# DATES:

Thursday, May 11, 2000, 1 p.m.—2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

# ADDRESSES:

NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Room 7W31, Washington, DC 20546.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Philip Cleary, Code IH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/358-4461.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Review the status of the fact-finding meetings conducted by the IOR Task Force and the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Utkin) Advisory Expert Council held April 24-28, 2000, at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida and the Johnson Space Center, Texas. The agenda will include the areas of Proton Launch Vehicle Update; Service Module Status, and; Mission Control Center—Moscow and Ground Readiness. Additional subjects will be ISS Air Quality; ISS Acoustics; ISS Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System (TVIS 2), and; Crew Training Status.

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitors register.

Dated: April 24, 2000.

Mathew M. Crouch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-10715 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### TILLMAN et al. v. TILLMAN et al.

No. 32777.

Sept. 16, 1947.

*184 P. 2d 784.*

Bruce L. Keenan, of Tahlequah, for plaintiffs in error.

W. W. Miller, Sr., and W. W. Miller, Jr., both of Tahlequah, for defendants in error.

CORN, J.

Plaintiffs, claiming as heirs of A. J. Tillman, deceased, brought the present action in the district court of Cherokee county for determination of heirship, partition of real estate, and to *131quiet title, under the provisions of 84 O.S. 1941 §§257-261.

Defendants filed motion to dismiss the petition. This motion was overruled and defendants failed to plead further within the time allowed. April 25, 1946, the trial court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

Thereafter, May 16, 1946, within the term, the trial court vacated and set aside this judgment upon his own motion, and ordered the cause reinstated upon the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed motion for new trial and, on the day following, an amended motion for new trial. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed motion for judgment on the pleadings and request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On August 8, 1946, there had been no trial upon the merits upon any issue which could provide the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, apparently in response to plaintiffs’ request, the trial court made certain statements indicative of his opinion as to the extent of his jurisdiction in the matter. The trial court then overruled the first two motions for new trial, from which action the plaintiffs did not give notice of appeal. Plaintiffs then filed a third motion for new trial which was overruled, and plaintiffs gave notice of appeal.

Judgments are under the control of the court which pronounces them, during the term at which rendered, and the court has a wide discretion to set aside, vacate or modify them during the term. Hart v. Howell, 184 Okla. 146, 85 P. 2d 401. And, the court has the right to do this upon its own motion. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 37 Okla. 678, 133 P. 202; also, see Roland Union Graded S. D., etc., v. Thompson, Trustee, 190 Okla. 416, 124 P. 2d 400; Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 176 Okla. 96, 54 P. 2d 1032. No abuse of discretion is shown herein.

Although the trial court made certain findings or statements which appear in the record, such purported findings at best seem merely indicative of the trial court’s opinion as to the nature and extent of his jurisdiction. These statements obviously did not constitute a final judgment, being merely statements of opinion or comment made in response to the plaintiff’s request for findings. A judgment is a final determination of the rights of the parties in an action, and is distinct from findings of the court. Davis v. Baum et al., 192 Okla. 85, 133 P. 2d 889; Findings and opinion of the court are never the judgment, but only expressions as to what the court considers its judgment should be. Maroney et al. v. Tannehill et al., *90*Okla. 224, 215 P. 938.

Judgment affirmed.

HURST ,C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, WELCH, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
**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**

|   | (1). | The                Report                fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                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:                October                16, 2007 | /s/Jeffrey                R. Scheffer             |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 | Jeffrey                R.                Scheffer |
|                                                 | Chief                Executive Officer            |

----
*The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3181

___________

Mary Gray, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Massanari, Acting *

Commissioner, Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2001

Filed: April 24, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and VIETOR,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mary Gray sought disability insurance benefits asserting she is disabled by

fibromyalgia, stress, fatigue, depression, and memory loss. An administrative law

judge (ALJ) concluded Gray is not disabled because she retains the residual functional

capacity to return to her past relevant work as a salesperson. Gray sought judicial
-2-

review, and the district court concluded substantial evidence supported the ALJ's

decision. Gray appeals asserting the ALJ did not properly consider her subjective

complaints, her treating physician's opinion that she can only stand or walk for four

hours per day, and the limitations posed by her severe depression. Having carefully

reviewed the record, we conclude the district court correctly held substantial evidence

supports the ALJ's decision. The ALJ evaluated Gray's subjective complaints in

compliance with Polaski v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 1984), and properly

found Gray's subjective complaints were not credible because of inconsistencies in the

evidence. The ALJ also properly found Gray could perform her past relevant work as

it was actually performed, and Gray's depression was situational in nature and relieved

by medication. We thus affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 158.87 Loss of Federal airport grant funds. ( a ) If the Administrator determines that revenue derived from a PFC is excessive or is not being used as approved, the Administrator may reduce the amount of funds otherwise payable to the public agency under 49 U.S.C. 47114. Such a reduction may be made as a corrective action under § 158.83 or § 158.85 of this part.
( b ) The amount of the reduction under paragraph (a) of this section shall equal the excess collected, or the amount not used in accordance with this part.
( c ) A reduction under paragraph (a) of this section shall not constitute a withholding of approval of a grant application or the payment of funds under an approved grant within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 47111(d).
[Doc. No. 26385, 56 FR 24278, May 29, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 158-2, 65 FR 34543, May 30, 2000]
#### § 135.107 Flight attendant crewmember requirement.

No certificate holder may operate an aircraft that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of more than 19 unless there is a flight attendant crewmember on board the aircraft.
Swanson, Brian {OST) 

Fr-Om:. 

·se'ntr · 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

John Burczyk <jburczyk@yahoo.com> 

Sunday, August 12,2012 2:37 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Rhinelander Aitport Contract 

.. ,- , ,. -~Jrtu=t· 2.ou .. P'pq . I" II'~ 

Hello;Back when Northwest Airlines had the contract and with 2 sons in the military our family was a frequent 

user of the Rhinelander Airport.Lately,we been forced to drive to Milwaukee for our airline trips .I think the 

Delta/Skywest option would best serve the airport at this time.Thankyou,John Burczyk 5611 Rush 

Rd. Conover, Wi.54519. 

1
§ 156.3 Application and grant process. ( a ) A State desiring to participate shall submit a completed application to the Associate Administrator for Airports.
( b ) After review of the applications submitted by the States, the Administrator shall select three States for participation in the State block grant pilot program.
( c ) The Administrator shall issue a written grant offer that sets forth the terms and conditions of the State block grant agreement to each selected State.
( d ) A State's participation in the State block grant pilot program begins when a State accepts the Administrator's written grant offer in writing and within any time limit specified by the Administrator. The State shall certify, in its written acceptance, that the acceptance complies with all applicable Federal and State law, that the acceptance constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the State, and that the State has the authority to carry out all the terms and conditions of the written grant offer.
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.177 Amendment or modification.

An airworthiness certificate may be amended or modified only upon application to the FAA.
§ 611.505 Farm Credit Administration review. ( a ) Upon receipt of the board of directors resolution and the accompanying documents, the Farm Credit Administration shall review the request and either deny or give its preliminary approval to the request.
( b ) If the request is denied, written notice stating the reasons for the denial shall be transmitted to the chief executive officer of the bank and the association who shall promptly notify their respective boards of directors.
( c ) Upon approval of the proposed transfer of authorities by the stockholders as provided in § 611.510, the secretary of the bank and the secretary of the association shall forward to the Farm Credit Administration a certified record of the results of the stockholder votes.
( d ) Each institution shall notify its stockholders not later than 30 days after the stockholder vote of the final results of the vote. If no petition for reconsideration is filed with the Farm Credit Administration in accordance with § 611.525, the transfer shall be effective on the date specified in the transfer plan, or at such later date as may be required by the Farm Credit Administration to grant final approval. Notice of final approval shall be transmitted to the institutions involved.
( e ) The effective date of a transfer may not be less than 35 days after mailing of the notification to stockholders of the results of the stockholder vote, or 15 days after the date of submission to the Farm Credit Administration of all required documents for the Agency's consideration of final approval, whichever occurs later. If a petition for reconsideration is filed within 35 days after the date of mailing of the notification of stockholder vote, the constituent institutions must agree on a second effective date to be used in the event the transfer is approved on reconsideration. The second effective date may not be less than 60 days after stockholder notification of the results of the first vote, or 15 days after the date of the reconsideration vote, whichever occurs later.
[53 FR 50393, Dec. 15, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 64844, Nov. 24, 1998]
§ 136.7 Passenger briefings. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 67850 , Aug. 22, 2024.
( a ) Before takeoff each pilot in command shall ensure that each passenger has been briefed on the following: ( 1 ) Procedures for fastening and unfastening seatbelts;
( 2 ) Prohibition on smoking; and
( 3 ) Procedures for opening exits and exiting the aircraft.
( b ) For flight segments over water beyond the shoreline, briefings must also include: ( 1 ) Procedures for water ditching;
( 2 ) Use of required life preservers; and
( 3 ) Procedures for emergency exit from the aircraft in the event of a water landing.
#### § 25.477 Landing gear arrangement.

Sections 25.479 through 25.485 apply to airplanes with conventional arrangements of main and nose gears, or main and tail gears, when normal operating techniques are used.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GIOVANNI CARRILLO

, Appellant,

v.

GISELLE CARRILLO and MARIA CLAUDIA ZERDA

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 1534

[ November 12, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2019

- CP

005272 SB

.

Giovanni Carrillo, Bogota D.C. Colombia, South America, pro se.

Morton Antman of Morton Antman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 NT Holding Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Chun Ka Tsun, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.

Date: August 21, 2006


/S/ Chun Ka Tsun
----------------
Chun Ka Tsun
Chief Executive Officer
#### Balsam *v.*The State.

*Violating Oyster Law.*

(Decided May 20, 1915.

69 South. 236.)

*Criminal Law; Statute; Repealing; Effect.*— Under the express provisions of section 7806, Code 1907, a prosecution for the violation of a statute is not destroyed by the repeal of the act after a conviction thereunder.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. William E. Fort.

Solomon Balsam was convicted of violating tbe Oyster Commission Law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

A. & F. B. Latady, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and J. P. Mudd, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

THOMAS, J.

Tbe judgment in this case is affirmed on tbe authority of *Mangeldorf v.*State, 8 Ala. App. 302, 62 South. 373, *Ex parte*Mangeldorf, 185 Ala. 33, 64 South. 598, and *State v. Parker,*5 Ala. App. 231, 59 South. 741, which settle, adversely to appellant, every question raised in tbe case, except tbe contention that tbe fact of tbe repeal, since defendant’s conviction, of tbe act under which defendant was convicted, destroys tbe prosecution. That contention is equally without merit.—Code, § 7806) *Birmingham v. Baranco,*4 Ala. App. 279; 58 South. 944.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.117 Issue of supplemental type certificates. ( a ) An applicant is entitled to a supplemental type certificate if the FAA finds that the applicant meets the requirements of §§ 21.113 and 21.115.
( b ) A supplemental type certificate consists of— ( 1 ) The approval by the FAA of a change in the type design of the product; and
( 2 ) The type certificate previously issued for the product.
[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14568, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53387, Oct. 16, 2009]
§ 25.525 Application of loads. ( a ) Unless otherwise prescribed, the seaplane as a whole is assumed to be subjected to the loads corresponding to the load factors specified in § 25.527.
( b ) In applying the loads resulting from the load factors prescribed in § 25.527, the loads may be distributed over the hull or main float bottom (in order to avoid excessive local shear loads and bending moments at the location of water load application) using pressures not less than those prescribed in § 25.533(c).
( c ) For twin float seaplanes, each float must be treated as an equivalent hull on a fictitious seaplane with a weight equal to one-half the weight of the twin float seaplane.
( d ) Except in the takeoff condition of § 25.531, the aerodynamic lift on the seaplane during the impact is assumed to be 2 ⁄ 3 of the weight of the seaplane.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. 25-148, 87 FR 75710, Dec. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2813, Jan. 18, 2023]