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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4551 

To provide a cause of action for persons injured by rioting. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. COTTON (for himself and Mrs. LOEFFLER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide a cause of action for persons injured by rioting. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rioting Restitution 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION FOR INJURIES. 

7 (a) CAUSE OF ACTION.—A person who suffers per8 sonal injury or whose property is damaged by a riot (as 

9 defined in section 2102 of title 18, United States Code) 

10 may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court 

11 of the United States against any person who— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4551 IS

1 (1) caused the personal injury or property dam2 age; 

3 (2) traveled in interstate or foreign commerce 

4 or used any facility of interstate or foreign com5 merce, including the mail, telegraph, telephone, 

6 radio, or television, with the intent to— 

7 (A) incite the riot; 

8 (B) organize, promote, encourage, partici9 pate in, or carry on the riot; 

10 (C) commit any act of violence in further11 ance of the riot; or 

12 (D) aid or abet any person in inciting or 

13 participating in or carrying on the riot or com14 mitting any act of violence in furtherance of the 

15 riot; and 

16 (3) during the course of, or following, any such 

17 travel or use performed or attempted to perform any 

18 other overt act for any purpose specified in subpara19 graph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2). 

20 (b) TREBLE DAMAGES.—A defendant in a civil action 

21 brought under subsection (a) shall be subject to treble 

22 damages. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### § 252.17 Enforcement.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that smoking by passengers or crew is not permitted where smoking is prohibited by this part, including but not limited to aircraft lavatories.

[Docket DOT-OST-2011-0044, 81 FR 11428, Mar. 4, 2016]
Exhibit 32   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 Amended Annual Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Alan D. Gordon and Shelley Goff, 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 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:May 15, 2008By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:May 15, 2008By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11573]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 2, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Paul Kaboth, Banking 
Supervision) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Thoocon, Inc., Somerset, Kentucky; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First Commerce 
Bancorp, Inc., Somerset, Kentucky, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Cumberland Security Bank, Somerset, Kentucky.
    2. Park National Corporation, Newark, Ohio; to acquire100 percent 
of the voting shares of SNB Corp., Greenville, Ohio, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Second National Bank, Greenville, Ohio.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Minnwest Corporation, Minnetonka, Minnesota; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Minnwest Bank Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls, 
South Dakota, a de novo bank.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11573 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit D

Summary of Segal Consulting Blended Hourly Rates

Blended Hourly Rate Billed in

this Fee Application

Senior Vice President $670

VP & Actuary $552

Actuary $394

Consultant $400

Analyst $332

All Employees $472

Case Name: In re Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.

Case Number:   17 BK 3283‐LTS

Applicant's Name:   Segal Consulting

Date of Application:   July 16, 2018

Interim or Final:   Interim

Timekeeper Category

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-4 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 1 of 1
§ 382.159 How are complaints filed with DOT? ( a ) Any person believing that a carrier has violated any provision of this part may seek assistance or file an informal complaint at the Department of Transportation no later than 6 months after the date of the incident by either: ( 1 ) Going to the web site of the Department's Aviation Consumer Protection Division at *http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov* and selecting “Air Travel Problems and Complaints,” or
( 2 ) Writing to Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division (C-75), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
( b ) Any person believing that a carrier has violated any provision of this part may also file a formal complaint under the applicable procedures of 14 CFR part 302.
( c ) You must file a formal complaint under this part within six months of the incident on which the complaint is based in order to ensure that the Department of Transportation will investigate the matter.
§ 25.523 Design weights and center of gravity positions. ( a ) *Design weights.* The water load requirements must be met at each operating weight up to the design landing weight except that, for the takeoff condition prescribed in § 25.531, the design water takeoff weight (the maximum weight for water taxi and takeoff run) must be used.
( b ) *Center of gravity positions.* The critical centers of gravity within the limits for which certification is requested must be considered to reach maximum design loads for each part of the seaplane structure.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5673, Apr. 8, 1970]
#### SANCHEZ v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 90-6223 (Lower Court Case Nos. 031-853RX and 031-854RX)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

November 20, 1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Daniel Kirkwood, Esquire, for appellant.

Peter N. Nazaretian, Esquire, for appellee.

Before RICHARD A. LAZZARA, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Appellant seeks a reversal of his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. He asserts that the Trial Court erred by denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. This Court agrees.

In assessing a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal a Trial Court must look only to the proof adduced by the State of Florida. *48
      *State v Pennington,*534 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1988). In this case that proof was circumstantial in nature, especially as to the identification of the Appellant being the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The Trial Court conceded that the evidence was circumstantial but found it sufficient based on the unrefuted testimony of the victim that she followed the vehicle which struck her. (R.108) However, the victim was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle (R. 62) nor did she identify the Appellant as being one of the three individuals whom she confronted when she arrived at the location of the vehicle. (R.59) Indeed, she did not even see who exited the vehicle that she claims struck her. (R.58)

The only evidence linking the Appellant to the crime was the testimony of the investigating officer. He testified that he returned with the victim to the location of the vehicle which the victim claimed struck her vehicle. He stated that although the Appellant admitted driving the vehicle that night, he denied driving the vehicle in the area where the accident occurred or even being involved in an accident. (R. 68-69).

This evidence is clearly insufficient “to identify the [Appellant] as the perpetrator of the crime.” *Ponsell v State,*393 So.2d 635, 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction is reversed and this case is remanded to the Trial Court with directions to discharge the Appellant.
§ 3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials. ( a ) *Definitions.* The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section: *Airworthy* means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.
*Product* means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or aircraft propeller.
*Record* means any writing, drawing, map, recording, tape, film, photograph or other documentary material by which information is preserved or conveyed in any format, including, but not limited to, paper, microfilm, identification plates, stamped marks, bar codes or electronic format, and can either be separate from, attached to or inscribed on any product, part, appliance or material.
( b ) *Prohibition against fraudulent and intentionally false statements.* When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make or cause to be made: ( 1 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any record about the airworthiness of a type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
( 2 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false reproduction or alteration of any record about the airworthiness of any type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
( c ) *Prohibition against intentionally misleading statements.* ( 1 ) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, a material representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
( 2 ) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, through the omission of material information, a representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
( d ) The provisions of § 3.5(b) and § 3.5(c) shall not apply if a person can show that the product is airworthy or that the product, part, appliance or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Actuate Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-167748, 333-164702, 333-159904, 333-151004, 333-143235, 333-134140, 333-124546, 333-113545, 333-104101, 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-33720, 333-73015, and 333-59959) on Form S-8 and in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) on Form S-3 of Actuate Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) of our reports dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as ofDecember 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule as set forth in Item 15(a)(2) and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K ofActuate Corporation. 

 

Our report datedMarch 11, 2011, on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, expresses our opinion that the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2010, because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states that a material weakness has been identified related to the controls over the review ofthe income tax provision. 

 

/s/KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View,California 

March 11, 2011
#### § 375.34 Indoctrination training.

Foreign civil aircraft may be operated in the United States for the purpose of giving indoctrination training in the operation of the aircraft concerned to a buyer or a buyer's employees or designees. This section does not, however, authorize foreign civil aircraft to be used within the United States for the purpose of flight instruction for remuneration or hire.
**Exhibit
      32**




**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 on Form 10-Q of Arch Chemicals, Inc.,
      a
      Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the period ending March 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to such officer's knowledge, that:




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




2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
      for
      the periods presented in the Report.




The
      foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
      provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
      to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.




Dated:
                May 5, 2006
            
            /s/ Michael
                E. CampbellMichael
                E. Campbell
              Chief
                Executive OfficerDated:
                May 5, 2006
            
            /s/ Louis
                S. MassimoLouis
                S. Massimo
              Chief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4065 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4065

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Reinforcing American-Made Products 
Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVITY OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LABELING OF 
              PRODUCTS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTRODUCED IN 
              INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.

    Section 320933 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 45a) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``To the extent'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) In General.--To the extent'';
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Effect on State Law.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        provisions of this section shall supersede any provisions of 
        the law of any State expressly relating to the extent to which 
        a product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, 
        advertised, or offered for sale in interstate or foreign 
        commerce with a `Made in the U.S.A.' or `Made in America' 
        label, or the equivalent thereof, in order to represent that 
        such product was in whole or substantial part of domestic 
        origin.
            ``(2) Enforcement.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
        the application of the law of any State to the use of a label 
        not in compliance with subsection (a).''; and
            (3) in the third sentence of subsection (a), as so 
        designated by paragraph (1), by striking ``Nothing in this 
        section'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (b), 
        nothing in this section''.

            Passed the Senate July 22, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4065

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.
```
May 8, 2009  Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20549   Re: Socialwise, Inc. (formerly known as IdeaEdge, Inc.) EIN: 20-8982181   Commissioners:  We were previously the principal accountants for Socialwise, Inc., formerly known as IdeaEdge, Inc., a California corporation, which was acquired by Socialwise, Inc. (formerly known as IdeaEdge, Inc.), a Colorado corporation (the Company) on October 16, 2007.  We reported on the financial statements of IdeaEdge, Inc. as of June 30, 2007 and for the period April 3, 2007 (Inception) to June 30, 2007.  We have not provided any audit services to IdeaEdge, Inc. since the audit of the June 30, 2007 financial statements.  On November 13, 2007, we were dismissed as the principal accountants of Socialwise, Inc.  We have read the Company's statements included under Item 4.01 of its Form 8-K/A dated November 13, 2007.  The Companys statements have been duplicated in Item 9 of their Form 10-K/A dated September 30, 2008 and in Item 8 of their Form 10-K/A dated September 30, 2007.  We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in these filings.  We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with other statements made in the filings.   Very truly yours,   /s/ Weaver & Martin, LLC Weaver & Martin, LLC Kansas City, Missouri
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Americas Power Partners, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    
|--------------------
|                    
|/s/ Mark A. Margason
|Mark A. Margason    
|November 10, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

671 

CAF 14-00526 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF LANCE M. LAPOINT, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WENDY PELLICIOTTI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

KELLY M. CORBETT, FAYETTEVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

KAREN J. DOCTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FAYETTEVILLE. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Julie

A. Cecile, J.), entered February 26, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealed from,

directed that respondent continue to be the parent of primary

residence. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and the matter is

remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in

accordance with the following memorandum: Pursuant to Family Court

Act article 6, petitioner father sought “joint custody or full custody

[i]f needed[,]” of the parties’ child and specific dates and times for

visitation. The father appeals from an order insofar as it directed

that respondent mother continue to be the “parent of primary

residence.” 

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in designating

the mother the “parent of primary residence,” thereby implicitly

condoning the mother’s relocation to Florida with the child. Inasmuch

as “the court made no explicit determination that the relocation was

in the best interests of the child, and . . . failed to make findings

regarding relevant factors that must be considered in making such a

determination” (Matter of McLaughlin v Michaud, 256 AD2d 1130, 1131;

see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740-741), we reverse the

order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to Family Court

for a determination, including specific findings, whether relocation

to Florida with the mother is in the best interests of the child.

 

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court