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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4334 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4334

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the process by which 
   a member of the Armed Forces may be referred for a mental health 
                              evaluation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2020

  Ms. McSally introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the process by which 
   a member of the Armed Forces may be referred for a mental health 
                              evaluation.

    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 ``Brandon Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY REFERRAL OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR MENTAL 
              HEALTH EVALUATION.

    Section 1090a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(e) Process Applicable to Member Disclosure.--The regulations 
required by subsection (a) shall--
            ``(1) establish a phrase that enables a member of the armed 
        forces to trigger a referral of the member by a commanding 
        officer or supervisor for a mental health evaluation;
            ``(2) require a commanding officer or supervisor to make 
        such referral as soon as practicable following disclosure by 
        the member to the commanding officer or supervisor of the 
        phrase established under paragraph (1); and
            ``(3) ensure that the referral process protects the 
        confidentiality of the member in a manner similar to the 
        confidentiality provided for members making restricted reports 
        under section 1565b(b) of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 420.23 Launch site location review—flight corridor. ( a ) *Guided orbital expendable launch vehicle.* For a guided orbital expendable launch vehicle, an applicant shall define a flight corridor that: ( 1 ) Encompasses an area that the applicant estimates, in accordance with the requirements of this part, to contain debris with a ballistic coefficient of ≥3 pounds per square foot, from any non-nominal flight of a guided orbital expendable launch vehicle from the launch point to a point 5000 nm downrange, or where the IIP leaves the surface of the Earth, whichever is shorter;
( 2 ) Includes an overflight exclusion zone where the public risk criteria of 1 × 10−4 would be exceeded if one person were present in the open; and
( 3 ) Uses one of the methodologies provided in appendix A or B of this part.
( b ) *Guided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle.* For a guided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle, an applicant shall define a flight corridor that: ( 1 ) Encompasses an area that the applicant estimates, in accordance with the requirements of this part, to contain debris with a ballistic coefficient of ≥3 pounds per square foot, from any non-nominal flight of a guided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle from the launch point to impact with the earth's surface;
( 2 ) Includes an impact dispersion area for the launch vehicle's last stage;
( 3 ) Includes an overflight exclusion zone where the public risk criteria of 1 × 10−4 would be exceeded if one person were present in the open; and
( 4 ) Uses one of the methodologies provided in appendix A or B to this part.
( c ) *Unguided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle.* ( 1 ) For an unguided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle, an applicant shall define the following using the methodology provided by appendix D of this part: ( i ) Impact dispersion areas that the applicant estimates, in accordance with the requirements of this part, to contain the impact of launch vehicle stages from nominal flight of an unguided sub-orbital expendable launch vehicle from the launch point to impact with the earth's surface; and
( ii ) An overflight exclusion zone where the public risk criteria of 1 × 10−4 would be exceeded if one person were present in the open.
( 2 ) An applicant shall base its analysis on an unguided suborbital launch vehicle whose final launch vehicle stage apogee represents the intended use of the launch point.
( d ) *Reusable launch vehicle.* For a reusable launch vehicle, an applicant shall define a flight corridor that contains the hazardous debris from nominal and non-nominal flight of a reusable launch vehicle. The applicant must provide a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity of its flight corridor.
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5833, 65 FR 62861, Oct. 19, 2000, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2014-0418, Amdt. No. 420-7, 81 FR 47026, July 20, 2016; Doc. No. FAA-2016-6761, Amdt. No. 420-8, 83 FR 28535, June 20, 2018]
#### § 437.77 Additional safety requirements.

The FAA may impose additional safety requirements on an applicant or permittee proposing an activity with a hazard not otherwise addressed in this part. This may include a toxic hazard or the use of solid propellants. The FAA may also require the permittee to conduct additional analyses of the cause of any anomaly and corrective actions.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2048
CONNIE JOHNSON; RAY JOHNSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DIAL INDUSTRIES SALES, INCORPORATED; TELESTEPS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00047-JPB) Submitted: July 14, 2008 Decided: August 6, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis F. O’Brien, FOARD, GISRIEL, O’BRIEN & WARD, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellants. John T. Sly, James B. Lees, Jr., WARANCH & BROWN, LLC, Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Connie and Ray Johnson appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Dial Indus. Sales, Inc. , No. 3:05-cv-00047-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Helen Goldstein, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Pincus Burger, Appellant, *v.*East Side Metal Spinning and Stamping Corporation et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

(Argued May 26, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*425
      *Herman S. Bachrach*and *Clarence G. Bachrach*for appellant.

*David Haar*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 272 N. Y. 509.)

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Pinch, JJ.
§ 431.39 Mission rules, procedures, contingency plans, and checklists. ( a ) An applicant shall submit mission rules, procedures, checklists, emergency plans, and contingency abort plans, if any, that ensure safe conduct of mission operations during nominal and non-nominal vehicle flight.
( b ) Mission rules, procedures, checklists, emergency plans, and contingency abort plans must be contained in a safety directive, notebook, or other compilation that is approved by the safety official designated under § 431.33(c) and concurred in by the launch site operator and reentry site operator, if any.
( c ) Vehicle safety operations personnel must have current and consistent mission checklists.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2014

113th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–127 

ADDITIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. MILITARY 

PERSONNEL IN IRAQ 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A NOTIFICATION OF FURTHER MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO THE 

SITUATION IN IRAQ 

JUNE 30, 2014.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 30, 2014. 

Hon. JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: As I previously reported on June 16, 2014, 

U.S. Armed Forces personnel have deployed to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in 

Baghdad. 

In light of the security situation in Baghdad, I have ordered up 

to approximately 200 additional U.S. Armed Forces personnel to 

Iraq to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy, its support facilities, 

and the Baghdad International Airport. This force consists of additional security forces, rotary-wing aircraft, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. 

This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens 

and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat. This force 

will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that 

it is no longer needed. 

This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility 

to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant 

to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and 

as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. 

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution 

(Public Law 93–148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in 

these actions. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
<!
 Created by EDGAR Ease Plus (EDGAR Ease+ 1.2a)  >

# EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

# SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), I, the undersigned Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Veterinary Pet
Services, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended June
30, 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
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: August 14, 2003 | /s/ PAUL W. SOUZA
________________________________
Paul W. Souza
Executive Vice President, 
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 303.33 Modifications and cancellations.

This subpart also applies to all modifications or cancellations of contracts or agreements or requests for authority to discuss a possible cooperative working arrangement.
Exhibit B 1 of 1

Exhibit B

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

Summary of Compensation by Project

For the Period February 1, 2018 through April 30, 2018

Project Category Project Category Description Time Total Individual Fees

T3 -Creditor Mediation Support This category includes time spent collaborating with advisors to support the mediation process, 

preparing material and advising on strategy.

45.3 $ 33,164.90

T3 - Long-Term Projections This category includes time spent collaborating in the assessment of long term financial 

projections including analysis of restructuring scenarios, development of long term financial 

projections, funds available for creditors and analysis of creditor recoveries for the best interest 

test feasibility and other matters

1,524.5 $ 946,263.60

T3 – Plan of Adjustment This category includes time spent collaborating in the development of a Plan of Adjustment, 

including the treatment of each creditor class, financial analysis related to the best interest test, 

plan feasibility and other financial and economic analyses.

0.6 $ 507.00

T3 - Fee Applications / Retention This category includes time spent preparing monthly and interim fee application 2.1 $ 1,279.50

T3 - CBA/Labor Agreements This category includes time spent collaborating with legal counsel and FOMB to analyze and 

identify CBA terms, pension requirement and other financial needs. 

95.2 $ 55,785.90

T3 - Non-working travel (billed at 50% of rates) This category includes all matters related to non-working travel and is billed at 50% of agreed 

upon rates.

254.2 $ 77,250.35

T3 Total 1,921.9 1,114,251.25

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3534-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:15:12 Desc:

Exhibit Correct Exhibit B to Docket Number 3532 Page 1 of 1
§ 372.28 Record retention.[1] ( a ) Every charter operator conducting a charter pursuant to this part shall retain for 2 years after completion of the charter or series of charters true copies of the following documents at its principal or general office in the United States: ( 1 ) All documents which evidence or reflect deposits made by, and refunds made to, each charter participant;
( 2 ) All statements, invoices, bills, and receipts from suppliers or furnishers of goods and services in connection with the charter or series of charters.
( b ) Every charter operator shall make the documents listed in this section available upon request by an authorized representative of the Department and shall permit such representative to make such notes and copies thereof as he deems appropriate.
[SPR-54, 37 FR 11163, June 3, 1972, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40105, Sept. 2, 1992] Footnotes -
372.28
[1] Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device, a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing of document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Title 18, U.S.C. sec. 1001.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                       EXHIBIT 8

                   SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF AMDOCS LIMITED


<Table>
<Caption>
                                        JURISDICTION OF
                                       INCORPORATION OR
LIST OF THE SUBSIDIARIES                 ORGANIZATION                     BUSINESS NAME
------------------------               ----------------                   -------------

<S>                             <C>                              <C>

Amdocs Astrum Limited           Ireland                          Amdocs Astrum Limited
Amdocs BCS, Inc.                State of California              Amdocs BCS, Inc.
Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.         State of North Carolina          Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.
Amdocs Canada, Inc.             Canada                           Amdocs Canada Inc.
Amdocs Canadian Managed         Canada                           Amdocs Canadian Managed
  Services, Inc.                                                 Services Inc.
Amdocs Champaign, Inc.          State of Delaware                Amdocs Champaign, Inc.
Amdocs (Denmark) ApS            Denmark                          Amdocs (Denmark) ApS
Amdocs Development Centre       India                            Amdocs Development Centre
  India Private Limited                                          India Private Limited
Amdocs Development Limited      Republic of Cyprus               Amdocs Development Limited
Amdocs Holdings ULC             Canada                           Amdocs Holdings ULC
Amdocs, Inc.                    State of Delaware                Amdocs, Inc.
Amdocs (Israel) Limited         Israel                           Amdocs (Israel) Limited
Amdocs Management Limited       United Kingdom                   Amdocs Management Limited
Amdocs Software Solutions Kft   Hungary                          Amdocs Software Solutions
                                                                 Limited Liability Company
Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.    Ireland                          Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.
Amdocs Stamford, Inc.           State of Delaware                Amdocs Stamford, Inc.
Amdocs (UK) Limited             United Kingdom                   Amdocs (UK) Limited
Cramer Systems Group Limited    United Kingdom                   Cramer Systems Group Limited
European Software Marketing     Island of Guernsey, Channel      European Software Marketing
  Ltd.                          Islands                          Ltd.
Longshine Information           British Virgin Islands           Longshine Information
  Technology Co. Ltd.                                            Technology Co. Ltd.
Sypress, Inc.                   State of Delaware                Sypress, Inc.
Qpass, Inc.                     Washington                       Amdocs Qpass Inc.
</Table>
[No. 20543-6-III.

Division Three.

October 24, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Cory Wayne Roberts, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 01-1-00100-5, Larry M. Kristianson, J., entered September 7, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
#### Woodruff *vs.*Brice & McLean.

Abuse in the *number*of pleas interposed will be corrected on motion.

To a declaration in assumpsit the defendant pleaded *seven*distinct pleas of *set-off,*and added a general notice of set-off. The plaintiff moved to strike out *six*of the pleas.

*By the Court.*

The statute allows a defendant to plead as many pleas as he thinks proper, but the court are not thereby deprived of their common law jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the statute, and to save the records of the court from being encumbered with useless matter. Motion granted.
§ 217.11 Reporting compliance. ( a ) Failure to file reports required by this part will subject an air carrier to civil penalties prescribed in Title 49 United States Code section 46301.
( b ) Title 18 U.S.C. 1001, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully make, or cause to be made, any false or fraudulent statements or representations in any matter within the jurisdiction of any agency of the United States.
[53 FR 46294, Nov. 16, 1988, as amended at 67 FR 49223, July 30, 2002; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15926, Apr. 16, 2019]
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the “10-Q”) of GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“GEO”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of GEOas of the dates and for the periods covered by the 10-Q.

 

|                          |   | GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Date:  May 13, 2003 |   | By:                      | /s/ WILLIAM P. ECKMAN |
|                          |   |                          |  |
|                          |   |                          | **William P. Eckman****Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer** |
**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 Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of Digital River, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period    ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and    Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),    Joel A. Ronning, Chief Executive Officer and Thomas M. Donnelly,    as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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. /s/  Joel    A. Ronning    Joel A. Ronning    Chief Executive Officer /s/  Thomas    M. Donnelly    Thomas M. Donnelly    Chief Financial Officer     Date: February 29, 2008     A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to Digital River, Inc. and    will be retained by Digital River, Inc. and furnished to the    Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-91875) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, The 1998
Stock Plan and The 1995 Incentive Stock Option Plan of iEntertainment Network,
Inc. (f/k/a Interactive Magic, Inc.) of our report dated February 25, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of iEntertainment Network, Inc.
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 20, 2000
#### § 33.66 Bleed air system.

The engine must supply bleed air without adverse effect on the engine, excluding reduced thrust or power output, at all conditions up to the discharge flow conditions established as a limitation under § 33.7(c)(11). If bleed air used for engine anti-icing can be controlled, provision must be made for a means to indicate the functioning of the engine ice protection system.

[Amdt. 33-10, 49 FR 6851, Feb. 23, 1984]
Jose Gilberto Pena, Et /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, T exas

October 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00048

- CV

America Amada GONZALEZ and Jamie Christina Garza McRae,

Appellant s

v.

Jose Gilberto PENA , Et Ux.,

Appellee s

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 10

- 359

Hon orable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee's motion to exclude defendant's exhibit 5 is hereby CARRIED WITH THE

APPEAL

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court