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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 847 

To extend the period of time during which a veteran’s multiple sclerosis 

is to be considered to have been incurred in, or aggravated by, military 

service during a period of war. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the period of time during which a veteran’s multiple sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred 

in, or aggravated by, military service during a period 

of war. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTED ILL4 NESS. 

5 Section 1112(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘within seven years from’’ and in7 serting ‘‘after’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### § 1918.90 Hazard communication.

See § 1918.1(b)(4).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7381
JAMES LEONARD ASH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLIEUTENANT OVERBY; W. J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-747-2) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior District Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Leonard Ash, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ash v. Overby , No. CA-97-747-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0456 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0456

**96/456/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1996 amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultrymeat from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 188 , 27/07/1996 P. 0052 - 0052 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1996 amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultrymeat from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (96/456/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Comunity trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2) and in particular Article 11 (1) thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 94/984/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/298/EC (4), established the animal health conditions and the veterinary certificates for imports of fresh poultrymeat from third countries;

Whereas information received from Israel has shown that this country will comply, from 1 October 1996 with the requirements of model A in respect of all categories of poultrymeat; whereas, it is therefore possible to amend Decision 94/984/EC accordingly;

Whereas it is also necessary to review the provisions relating to China, following an on-the-spot inspection carried out by the Commission services; whereas this inspection revealed that certification provided was inaccurate and inadequate; whereas a certain delay should be provided for this suspension to come into force to enable the competent authorities in the Member States to implement this Decision and to allow importation of consignments shipped before the date of entry into force of this Decision;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Annex I of Commission Decision 94/984/EC,

(a) footnote 3 is replaced by the following:

'(3) Importation suspended as from 1 August 1996`;

(b) from 1 October 1996, in the line referring to Israel, footnote (4) is deleted;

(c) from 1 October 1996, footnote (4) is replaced by the following:

'(4) Goose and duck liver only`.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 August 1996.

However, for a period of 60 days following the day of application of this Decision, the Member States shall authorize the importation of fresh poultry meat from China which was produced and certified in accordance with the provisions in force before that day.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ No L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 39.

(3) OJ No L 378, 31. 12. 1994, p. 11.

(4) OJ No L 114, 8. 5. 1996, p. 33.
#### BIGGS v. SHARP REAL ESTATE CO.

(Decided February 1, 1917.)

Appeal from Lauderdale Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Mitchell & Hughston, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DRKOOP.COM,
INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,951                  35,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,474                   6,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,176                      79
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,883                  69,100
<PP&E>                                          15,702                  11,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,119)                 (1,550)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,302                  99,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,562                  22,798
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            35                      30
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,414                  71,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,302                  99,720
<SALES>                                          2,523                   1,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,523                   1,019
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,102                  12,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                   6,319
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,561)                (17,685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,561)                (17,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,561)                (17,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.18)                  (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)                  (1.28)


</TABLE>
#### The People, *ex relatione*Swain, *vs.*New York C. P.

Albany,

July, 1838.

It is a good objection to special bail, in an action prosecuted in a court of common pleas, that they do not reside in the county^ where the action]is brought.

A suit was commenced by Swain against West, in the New York common pleas, by *capias ad respondendum,*on which the defendant, being a non-resident of the slate of New York, was arrested and held to bail. Special bail was put in and notice of justification before a judge at chambers, *given*to the plaintiff’s attorney. At the time and place appointed, the bail justified in the requisite amount, but were objected to on the part of the plaintiff upon the sole ground that they were *not residents in the city and county of New York,*but were residents of the city of Brooklyn, in Kings county. The judge sustained the objection and refused the bail, but granted an order staying proceedings, so that the *133opinion of the supreme court might be obtained on the question as to the validity of the objection~

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

All the above is *matter of practice*in the common pleas, in which they have a *discretion*with which we cannot interfere. Were this an application for a *mandamus,*it would be denied. We think, however, the better practice was adopted by the judge in this instance.
The Ho norable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3346

_____________ Charles L. Allen, Jr.; Judith D. Curry; * Rickey Evans; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. City of Little Rock; Rubin W. Webb, in * his official and individual capacity; * [UNPUBLISHED] James T. Cantrell, in his official and * individual capacity; * * Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: March 9, 1998 Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________ Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, an d MONTGOMERY, District Judge. 1

_____________ PER CURIAM.The Honorab le James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern 2 District of Arkansas. -2- The District Court grante d summary judgment to all the defendants. The court 2 determined that plaintiffs, who were terminated from their positions as probationary fi refighters without a hearing, were at-will employees and had no property interest in th eir positions; thus they were not entitled to the due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs appeal. Having considered the briefs, the record, and the arguments of the parties, w e are satisfied the judgment of the District Court is correct . No error of law appears, and an opinion would lack precedential value. Accordingly, we forego extende d discussion. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.30 Shipbuilding and ship repairing. ( a ) *General.* Shipbuilding, ship repairing, alterations, and maintenance performed on ships under Government contract, except naval ship construction, is work subject to the Act.
( b ) *Applicable safety and health standards.* For the purpose of work carried out under this section, the safety and health regulations in part 1915 of this title, Shipyard Employment, shall apply.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979; 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 61 FR 9249, Mar. 7, 1996]
================================================================================


EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifiy that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2007, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
"PERIODIC 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.


Dated: August 2, 2007


/s/ Dianne Hatton-Ward
----------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO



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

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" BY THE COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Gary W. Nielson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC.

 
|                               |      /s/  GARY W. NIELSON                                                                                                                                                                         |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  August 13th, 2003 | Gary  W. Nielson   Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial   Officer) of Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., the   Manager of Cornerstone Industrial Properties,   LLC, the Managing Member of Cornerstone   Realty Fund, LLC |

 

----
#### § 1925.3 Records.

Every contractor or subcontractor shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 29 CFR part 1904.

[40 FR 3593, Jan. 23, 1975]
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 Crdentia Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, James D. Durham,  Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  hereby  certify as of the date  hereof,  solely for the
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,  Section 1350 of the United States Code,  that
to my knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.


This  Certification  has not been,  and shall not be  deemed,  "filed"  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date:  May 16, 2005                         By:  /S/  James D. Durham
                                               -----------------------
                                                      James D. Durham
                                                      Chairman and Chief
                                                      Executive Officer


                                       45
§ 1612.12 Fees. ( a ) Records provided to the public under this part shall be furnished at the expense of the party requesting copies of the recording or minutes, upon payment of the actual cost of duplication.
( b ) All required fees shall be paid in full prior to issuance of requested copies of records. Fees are payable to the “Treasurer of the United States.”
§ 102.64 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) The purpose of a hearing conducted under Section 9(c) of the Act is to determine if a question of representation exists. A question of representation exists if a proper petition has been filed concerning a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining or concerning a unit in which an individual or labor organization has been certified or is being currently recognized by the employer as the bargaining representative. Disputes concerning individuals' eligibility to vote or inclusion in an appropriate unit ordinarily need not be litigated or resolved before an election is conducted. If, upon the record of the hearing, the Regional Director finds that a question of representation exists, the director shall direct an election to resolve the question.
( b ) Hearings shall be conducted by a Hearing Officer and shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. At any time, a Hearing Officer may be substituted for the Hearing Officer previously presiding. Subject to the provisions of § 102.66, it shall be the duty of the Hearing Officer to inquire fully into all matters and issues necessary to obtain a full and complete record upon which the Board or the Regional Director may discharge their duties under Section 9(c) of the Act.
( c ) The hearing shall continue from day to day until completed unless the Regional Director concludes that extraordinary circumstances warrant otherwise. The Regional Director may, in the director's discretion, adjourn the hearing to a different place by announcement thereof at the hearing or by other appropriate notice.
[84 FR 69593, Dec. 18, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 58101, Aug. 25, 2023]
#### NEGIN v MARSHALL Admr

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9078.

Decided Dec 24, 1928

Paul Stowe, Cleveland, for Negin.

Louis A Fisher, Cleveland, for Marshall.

*123VICKERY, J

Now we do not know whether there was any notice, because there is no bill of exceptions which sets out what took place at this hearing; but did the court commit error in this respect? Here, without the knowledge of the plaintiff or his counsel, when as a matter of fact the counsel had a written communication from the court, through its duly authorized clerk, that the case was assigned for the next day, for the 22nd day of December, the Court through mistake or inadvertence on the 21st, dismissed the action. Now if the court did enter such dismissal that day through mistake or inadvertence, it did it wrongfully and without any authority, which in our opinion did not operate as a discontinuance of the case. Now is it possible that, where the court makes a mistake and enters up a dismissal in an action, and subsequently learns of the mistake, that he cannot rectify the error- that had been made, and thus prevent such drastic effect upon the rights of the plaintiff who was in no way responsible, in compelling him to pay the costs and making him bring his lawsuit over again? We do not think that that is the law. The fact of it is the practice is the other way entirely.

Before a judgment can be vacated during term, or after term, two things must appear; First, a statutory ground which would excuse the defendant from not being in court, and second, a defense to the action, and that must not only be set up in the form of an answer, but it must be substantiated by proof which will show to the court that there is a proper defense in that. action.

Now in this case there is nothing in this record to show either of these things, for it must be remembered there is no bill of exceptions which brings into the record what took place at the hearing and to argue in a reviewing, court upon the record in this ease that the court abused his discretion, is going far afield. We do not think, as the record stands in this case, that the court abused his discretion, nor, do we think he could have done other than he did do. In other words, it was not error upon oral motion, or upon his own initiative, -to re-instate a case that had been inadvertently dismissed, even though the entry showed “without prejudice.” That was only a formal entry and the plaintiff had nothing to do with it.

There being no error in this record, we can do no other .but to affirm the judgment.

Sullivan, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.